March 2018 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1280/41
Mangles Bay Marina
Report on Submissions
City of Rockingham
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1280/41
Mangles Bay Marina
Report on Submissions
City of Rockingham
March 2018
Disclaimer This document has been published by the Western Australian Planning Commission. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the government, its employees and agents are not liable for any damage or loss whatsoever which may occur as a result of action taken or not taken, as the case may be, in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. Professional advice should be obtained before applying the information contained in this document to particular circumstances.
© State of Western Australia
Published by the Western Australian Planning Commission Gordon Stephenson House 140 William Street, Perth WA 6000
Locked Bag 2506 Perth WA 6001
MRS Amendment 1280/41 Report on Submissions File 809-2-28-17 Pt 1
Published March 2018
Internet: www.dplh.wa.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: (08) 655 18002 Fax: (08) 655 19001
This document is available in alternative formats on application to Communications Services.
Introduction to Metropolitan Region Scheme major amendments
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is responsible for keeping the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) under review and initiating changes where they are seen as necessary.
The MRS sets out the broad pattern of land use for the whole Perth metropolitan region. The MRS is constantly under review to best reflect regional planning and development needs.
A proposal to change land use reservations and zones in the MRS is regulated by the Planning and Development Act 2005. That legislation provides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.
For a substantial amendment, often referred to as a major amendment (made under section 41 of the Act), the WAPC considers all the submissions lodged, and publishes its recommendations in a report on submissions. This report is presented to the Minister for Planning and to the Governor for approval. Both Houses of Parliament must then scrutinise the amendment before it can take legal effect.
In the process of making a substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published as a public record under the following titles:
Amendment report This document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposed amendment. It sets out the purpose and scope of the proposal, explains why the amendment is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment through the submission process.
Environmental review report The Environmental Protection Authority must consider the environmental impact of an amendment to the MRS before it can be advertised. Should it require formal assessment, an environmental review is undertaken and made available for information and comment at the same time as the amendment report.
Report on submissions The planning rationale, determination of submissions and the recommendations of the WAPC for final approval of the amendment, with or without modification, is documented in this report.
Submissions This document contains a reproduction of all written submissions received by the WAPC on the proposed amendment.
Transcript of hearings A person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a hearings committee to express their views. The hearings proceedings may be recorded and transcribed, and the minutes of all hearings will be published and made available.
Contents
Report on submissions
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 The proposed amendment ...... 1
3 Environmental Protection Authority advice ...... 2
4 Call for submissions ...... 2
5 Submissions ...... 2
6 Hearings ...... 2
7 Main issues raised in submissions ...... 3
8 Responses and determinations ...... 13
9 Coordination of region and local scheme amendments ...... 13
10 Conclusion and recommendation ...... 13
Schedule 1 Alphabetical listing of submissions
Schedule 2 Summary of submissions and determinations
Schedule 3 The amendment figure - proposal 1 as advertised
Appendix 1 List of detail plans as advertised
Report on submissions
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1280/41 Mangles Bay Marina
Report on Submissions
1 Introduction
At its October 2014 meeting, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), resolved to proceed with this amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.
2 The proposed amendment
The amendment proposal was described in the previously published Amendment Report, and a description of the proposal is repeated below.
The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise various zones and reserves and Bush Forever Site 355 in the MRS. The proposed amendment will facilitate the development of a tourist based marina, as follows:
• A single entrance marina comprising public and private mooring facilities for approximately 661 - 700 boats (i.e. 411 - 450 in wet pens & 250 in boat stackers); • Combined aquatic club; • A marina village combining tourist based commercial uses, cafes, restaurant etc.; • Short stay and permanent residential uses; and • Open space and foreshore areas.
Lifting of Urban Deferment Requirements
A portion of the amendment area is located within the 500 m buffer of the Point Peron Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and is to be zoned Urban Deferred. Prior to the transfer of the land to the Urban zone, the WAPC and the Water Corporation will need to be satisfied that only compatible (non-sensitive) landuses will occur, which will not negatively impact the existing and future operations of the Point Peron WWTP.
Environmental Approval
The WAPC notes that the Mangles Bay Marina has been subject to a Public Environmental Review (PER) in accordance with section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The final result of the assessment is the setting of environmental conditions by the Minister for the Environment. The conditions form part of the Minister’s Statement No. 974, and were contained in Amendment Report and at the Office of Appeals Convenor: www.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au.
Federal environmental approval to the project, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, was also issued by the former Department of the Environment.
1 3 Environmental Protection Authority advice
The proposed amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for advice on whether environmental assessment would be required. The EPA advised that the proposed amendment does not require formal assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act. The EPA advised that it was not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations.
A copy of the notice from the EPA was included in the previously published Amendment Report.
4 Call for submissions
The amendment was advertised for public submissions from 11 August to 13 November 2015.
The amendment was made available for public inspection during ordinary business hours at:
i) the Western Australian Planning Commission, 140 William Street, Perth; ii) offices of the Cities of Perth, Fremantle, Rockingham and Cockburn; and
iii) the State Reference Library, Northbridge.
During the public inspection period, notice of the amendment was published in the West Australian and the Sunday Times newspapers and relevant local newspaper/s circulating in the locality of the amendment.
5 Submissions
Four hundred and ninety six submissions (includes five late submissions) were received on the amendment. An alphabetic index of all the persons and organisations lodging submissions is at Schedule 1.
Four hundred and thirty submissions objected, 38 submissions supported and 28 submissions contained no comments, general comments or otherwise indicated no objections to the amendment.
The main issues raised in the submissions are discussed further in Section 7 below. A summary of each submission with WAPC comments and determinations is at Schedule 2. A complete copy of all written submissions is contained in a separate publication Submissions (Volumes 1 – 7).
6 Hearings
Section 46 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provides that each person who makes a submission is to be offered the opportunity of being heard by a Committee formed by the WAPC for that purpose. The Committee comprised:
• Mr Steve Hiller, Member of the Statutory Planning Committee. • Mayor Henry Zelones, Local Government representative. • Ms Barbara Pederson, as an independent member with coastal planning knowledge.
2 All persons who made submissions were invited to present their submission to the Hearings Committee.
Sixty seven hearings were undertaken on 25, 30, 31 May and 7 and 8 June 2016. The Hearings Committee also undertook site inspections on 23 May and 11 July 2016.
7 Main issues raised in submissions
7.1 Supporting Submissions
Submissions from nearby and/or interested residents, the Rockingham – Kwinana Chamber of Commerce, Cruising Yacht Club of WA Inc. and the Crippled Children’s Seaside Home Society Inc. support the amendment as follows:
• The Mangles Bay Marina has been delayed for too long, and should be expedited. • The proposal will provide the community with better access to the site given the current poor conditions. • The amendment will facilitate new life and growth in the locality, improve the amenity (particularly housing) and provide safe mooring for boats. • The addition of much needed short stay accommodation will enable further business development opportunities in the region. • It will provide the Rockingham region with much needed employment, new business opportunities and a lifestyle destination for tourists and residents. • The proposed development will provide quality infrastructure for tourism, the recreational boating community and residents seeking to live a marina lifestyle. • There will be first class sailing and fishing club facilities, including associated community facilities.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
7.2 Objecting and/or Partially Objecting Submissions
(a) Land Tenure Arrangements
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• Submissions raise concerns that the amendment is inconsistent with the 1964 Point Peron Land Agreement, where the Federal Government transferred the subject land (and surrounding area) to the State Government for recreation and/or conservation purposes.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
3 Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Submissions request that the amendment area and/or the surrounding Parks and Recreation reserve / Bush Forever Site 355 at Point Peron be classified an “A” class reserve.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(b) Environmental Matters
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• The proposed amendment will impact on seagrasses (and associated matters) as follows:
o The ecology of Cockburn sound. o Seagrass replanting does not work. A bank guarantee is required. o Reliance on inaccurate seagrass shoot density cards by the Cockburn Sound Management Council.
o The proposed access channel will impact on seagrass meadows. o The impacts on capturing carbon through seagrass loss.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The prosed amendment will impact on the marine fauna of the locality, specifically the little penguins, fish species and pelicans.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The proposed amendment will impact on Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) Type Floristic Community Type 30a (and associated matters) as follows:
o Thrombolites and groundwater. o Salinity and dewatering.
4 o The impacts of the relocation of the main drain and impact on flooding. o Poorly understood geological detail has the potential to contaminate groundwater and substrata aquifers.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Water bores will be affected and there are groundwater modelling concerns.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• There are concerns relating to the proposed environmental offsets as follows:
o Offsets do nothing to protect and conserve the environment. o Any offset package will not be able to replace the environmental value of land.
o There is no alternative or comparable site that can offset the ecological value of land. A site is yet to be nominated by the proponent.
o The offset should be in one place, have appropriate species, appropriate climate and distance from the sea and sufficient integrity to enable rehabilitation.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Bush Forever site 355 comprises regionally significant natural vegetation with ecological linkages and should be preserved; Bush Forever areas are identified to protect the environment.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The vegetation within the amendment area ranges from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Good’ to ‘Degraded’. The following matters regarding native and remnant vegetation have been raised:
5 o Rockingham Lakes Regional Park system and TEC. o Transition corridor between Lake Richmond and Cape Peron. o Flora and fauna. o Quindalup dune ecosystem. o Retention of mature tuart trees.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The proposal impacts on terrestrial fauna in the locality, specifically White- Tailed Cockatoos.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Concerns have been raised regarding the Minister for the Environment’s environmental approval:
o The 10 day timeframe to provide a submission on the environment approval was too short.
o Question the validity of the approval and note that scientists do not agree with the conditions.
o Question the timing for preparation of the required management plans. o Question how the conditions will be implemented and monitored. o Require commitments from the developer to manage the environmental impacts.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• There are concerns regarding the disturbance and accumulation of Acid Sulphate Soils from dredging, resulting in impacts to groundwater and TECs.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
6 • There are concerns regarding the following coastal processes:
o Coastal processes altered the construction of the Garden Island Highway. o Coastal processes impact seagrasses, silting, water flow and flushing and result in damage to the sea floor.
o Storm surges impact on boat moorings and increased insurance claims. o Tidal flow causes silting and algal blooms. o Coastal processes are resulting in the demise of the bay, changes to the shoreline, build-up of sand and a shallow basin.
o Research of sedimentary distribution shows major erosion continuing along the shoreline that will not be addressed by an entrance channel.
o Impact of sea level rise on existing buildings.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(c) Marina and / or Canal Issues
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• As the proposal is a canal development the following matters are of concern:
o Canal developments in the eastern states, Port Geographe, Mandurah Canals etc. have had significant environmental impacts.
o Canal developments are associated with high maintenance costs and are a financial burden.
o The construction of canals will require dredging, causing flushing and water flow issues (e.g. impacts on seagrasses, mosquitoes etc.).
o Management of the marina has not been resolved.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The marina will require dredging which will cause the following impacts:
o Silting, sediment and slurry issues. o Sand movements and the disturbance of heavy metals, nutrients and toxins.
o Concerns regarding implementation of mitigation measures. o There will be pollution, noise and dust impacts during the construction of the marina.
7 WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The marina should be constructed in the first stages of development, otherwise only residential development will occur. A bank guarantee should be provided to cover construction costs before development occurs.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The limited flushing of the canals will result in seaweed smell and water quality issues.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The demand for boating facilities needs review as it was determined in 2008 by the Perth Recreational Boating Facility Study. There are alternative marina locations with less environmental impacts, e.g. Wanliss Street, Port Kennedy etc.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(d) State Planning Policies
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
8 • The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policies 2 - Environment and Natural Resources Policy and 2.8 - Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(e) Strategic Planning Matters
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• The proposal is not consistent with the State Planning Strategy 2050.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The identification of the site as “Urban Expansion” in the draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million / draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-regional Planning Framework is not supported. The proposal is inconsistent with Directions 2031 and beyond.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The WAPC should consider the Cape Peron Coastal Park Plan which provides an alternative vision for the Cape Peron Peninsula.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
9 Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Alternative land uses should be considered for the site such as: farmers market, art gallery, fishing club etc. Tourism opportunities should be further developed.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The business case for the project has not been made public; the project is unviable and will be a significant burden to State and Local Government.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(f) Regional Road Matters
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• There are concerns regarding the realignment of Memorial Drive and impacts on the existing regional road network (e.g. Garden Island Highway), as follows:
o Capacity of the local road network and road connections; Prevention of accidents.
o Detailed traffic modelling should use the most up-to-date forecasts for Memorial Drive.
o Adequacy of a single carriageway and funding responsibilities. o Restriction on access for HMAS Stirling. o Concern the full extent of Memorial Drive (ORR reservation) will not be constructed as a 29 m road reserve with four lanes.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The regional road link will impact the environmental qualities of Lake Richmond.
10 WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(g) Amenity Issues
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• There are health risks associated with canal developments such as mosquito impacts and associated management issues.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• There are concerns regarding the loss of approximately 500 m (of a 1,100 m) beach access.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The proposed amendment will lead to homogenous housing estates; it would be better to increase density in existing areas.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The proposed amendment should provide pedestrian areas with connections to safe useable spaces to boost tourism, such as: walking trails, paths, lighting etc.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
11 • The construction of the proposed marina development will result in amenity problems such as:
o Noise, dust and traffic impacts. o Anti-social issues. o Negative impacts on house prices; rates will increase. o Incompatible with the Kwinana Industrial Area.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
(h) Other Matters
Submissions objecting and/or commenting on the amendment have raised the following issues:
• The Urban Deferred area should be removed from the amendment as the Point Peron Wastewater Treatment Plant is to remain.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The site has been used for recreation (mental and physical) and education purposes; the site has historical connections which should be retained.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The relocation and/or removal of the RSL and Point Peron camp facilities impacts on affordable accommodation; rationalisation of moorings will increase costs for pensioners / low income earners.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• The site has Aboriginal heritage significance, only appropriately qualified elders should provide advice.
12 WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
• Valid community consultation has not been undertaken; there is continued community opposition.
WAPC Response: The amendment is not being finalised as there are a range of matters which have not been resolved and/or are considered “fatal flaws” to the finalisation of the proposed amendment.
Refer to “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report for further discussion on these matters.
8 Responses and determinations
The responses to all submissions are detailed in this report. The submissions of objection are recommended to be dismissed. It is recommended that the amendment should not proceed to finalisation.
9 Coordination of region and local scheme amendments
Under section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the WAPC has the option of concurrently rezoning land that is being zoned Urban under the MRS, to an "Urban Development" zone (or similar) in the Local Planning Scheme (LPS). As the amendment is not being finalised, section 126(3) is not relevant.
10 Conclusion and recommendation
This report summarises the background to major MRS Amendment 1280/41 and examines the various submissions made on it.
The WAPC carefully considered all submissions lodged on the amendment and had regard to the advice of the Hearings Committee and resolved to not support the finalisation of Amendment 1280/41 for the following reasons: i) The proposed scale and mix of land uses are incompatible with the planning of a connected and consolidated urban form which maximises the use of established and proposed infrastructure. ii) The Stephenson-Hepburn Plan recognised the importance of Point Peron for recreational uses. The Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, which includes Lake Richmond, is an important link in a series of reserves and regionally significant bush land. The size and scale of the proposed development, particularly the residential component, is inconsistent with this intent.
13 iii) The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 2.8 – Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region as it will result in the removal of approximately 44 ha of Bush forever Site 355. The remaining Bush Forever area is of a size and form that it is likely to negatively impact upon its ability to provide sustainable recreation and conservation outcomes in the locality. iv) The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy as a satisfactory Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Plan for the proposal remains outstanding and coastal setback requirements have not been determined which is likely to affect the scope and scale of the proposal. v) The proposal is inconsistent with draft State Planning Policy 4.1 – State Industrial Buffers (Amended) as it seeks to introduce odour sensitive land uses which may impact the on-going operation and potential expansion of the Point Peron WWTP. Further, no evidence has been provided that a reduction in the buffer requirements is possible and therefore to zone the land Urban Deferred would create a development expectation which is unlikely to be able to be realised. vi) The proposal is inconsistent with Development Control Policy 1.8 – Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments as the WAPC considers it critical that suitable marina management arrangements are reached prior to rezoning. Further to this, the City of Rockingham has significant concerns with marina management matters and there is no certainty that these can be resolved.
The WAPC, after considering the submissions, is satisfied that the amendment as shown generally on Amending Figure – Proposal 1 in Schedule 3 and in detail on the MRS Amendment Plan listed in Appendix 1 should not proceed to finalisation.
The WAPC recommends that the Minister for Planning refuse to finalise the amendment.
In considering the amendment, the Minster was mindful of the scale of the proposed marina development but found that, as Minister, she did not have the ability to amend the advertised proposal to an extent that might be sought. Accordingly, the Minister has determined that the proposed amendment should be withdrawn.
14
Schedule 1
Alphabetical listing of submissions Alphabetical Listing of Submissions
MRS Amendment 1280/41
Mangles Bay Marina
Submission Number Name 31 Aboriginal Affairs, Department of 300 Adamson, Bjoern 8 Adamson, Douglas 301 Adamson, Seriah 302 Alexander, Kim and Don 381 Amen, Kaye 219 Ansell, Edward 303 Aquilina, Audrey 33 Armanasco, Peter 304 Armstrong, Christopher 6 Atkinson, Elizabeth 382 Austin, Verna 383 Bagshaw, T 9 Baker-Hames, Lesley 60 Bandt, Moira 384 Barker, Jodie 48 Barritt, GG and RM 10 Bartlett, Kevin 305 Bates, Andy 385 Baynam, Brian 306 Bebbington, Joan 95 Beckman, Kerstin 386 Beckwith, Beryl 38 Beganovic, K 159 Bell, Trevor 483 Bencini, Roberta and MacFarlane, Craig 185 Bennett, Heath 197 Betts, Demi 170 Blackburn, D 171 Bland, Cheryle 220 Blick, Kylie 252 Blyth, Judith 253 Bolton, Nicholas 452 Boogaerdt, Emma 453 Boogaerdt, Humphrey 119 Bowater, Valma 74 Bradford, Kelly 79 Bratt, Lorraine 254 Bray, Gabrielle 221 Brent, Susan 198 Brierley, James 96 Brown, Fiona 139 Brown, Kaitlyn 454 Brown, Raymond 307 Bruce, Greg Submission Number Name 308 Bruce, Lorna 199 Brunswick, Tiffany 111 Buckland, Gareth 54 Buckland, J 120 Bunting, John 36 Burgess, Patricia 160 Burgess, Regina and Williams, Paul 106 Burns, George on behalf Cape Peron Coastal Park Steering Committee 86 Burns, George on behalf of Hands Off Point Peron 387 Butler, Alex 415 Byrne, Julie 255 Bywaters, Gladys 17 Cairns, Judith 309 Calvert, Michelle 22 Campbell, Bruce 310 Caporn, Ron 186 Carmichael, Patricia 140 Carr, Kerrie 39 Carroll, Lesley and John 311 Carson, Leanne 455 Carson, Samantha 200 Caseus, Christine 187 Chambers, Martin 97 Chapman, Ronald 388 Cheesewright, Lorraine 312 Chesson, Gerald 389 Choong, Ann 390 Christensen, Liana 456 Ciffolilli, Nicoletta 154 Clarke, Pauline 84 Cockburn Sound Management Council 201 Cole, Sarah 391 Coleman, Gavin 313 Connor, Elizabeth 314 Connor, Geraldine 315 Connor, Susannah 316 Connor, Tony 256 Conway, Kate 112 Cooper, Isobel 141 Cooper, Pamela 457 Cormack, Raymond and Brenda 317 Cotton, Annette 257 Cowgill, Sarah 392 Crippled Childrens Seaside Home Society Inc, The 258 Crockford, Don 393 Crossland, Janet 259 Crouch, Harmony 260 Crouch, Scott 261 Cvetkouski, Gordon and Kristina 262 D’Hart, Alexis 222 D’Hart, Nadia 318 Dachtler, James 319 Davidson, June Submission Number Name 113 Davies, Mary 23 Davis, Nick and Bayer, Colleen 263 Dawes, Kate 320 Dean, Andrew 321 Defence, Department of 413 Defending Public Open Spaces WA 121 den Breejen, PC 172 Denham, Anthony 264 Devlin, Deborah 202 Dickens, Rachel 394 Dilley, Pauline 122 Dimond, Barrie 142 Dinham, Mollie 395 Dobbs, Rasidah 396 Dobbs, Stephen 458 Dodds, Di 397 Dolzadelli, Danny 83 Doring, Phillip 265 Doust, Belinda 322 Drayton, Roslyn 398 Dreck, Sam 114 Dreyfus, Michele 203 Dubios, Jenny 399 Duckett, Doreen 123 Eades, Murray and Loris 223 Eccles, Francis 359 Edkins, Robert on behalf of Point Peron Aquatic Youth and Family Association 64 Education, Department of 42 Ellis, Richard and Wendy 90 Environment Regulation, Department of 98 Evans, Tracey 2 Ewen, Fiona and Darryl 26 Fire and Emergency Services, Department of 266 Fisher, William 323 Fisheries, Department of 124 Fitzgerald, Joanne and Renfrey, Brian 400 Flint, Carrie 324 Foote, Bryce 325 Ford, Douglas 224 Foster, Allison 459 Foster, Vicki 326 Francis, Emma 267 French, Bonny 268 French, Margo 204 Fussell, Jenny 107 Geddes, Keren 178 Geung, Ton on behalf of The Cruising Yacht Club of WA Inc 50 Gilbert, Graham 173 Godfrey, Patricia 402 Grant, Caroline 403 Grant, Johannah 75 Grauaug, William Submission Number Name 401 Gray, Denis and Valerie 179 Gray, Maurice 167 Green, Graham 118 Green, Peter 45 Griffiths, Dominique 143 Griffiths, Steven 327 Grigg, Kelly 225 Gusr, Tal-Petra 144 Haddrell, Mizuki 71 Hall, Ian 404 Hands Off Point Peron Inc 3 Hannaby, Thelma 99 Haq, Krystyna 328 Hardegen, Gary 405 Hardisty, Heidi 188 Hardman, Jill 460 Harper, Sandy 329 Harrington, Susan 35 Harris, Paul 18 Harrison, Jean 330 Hartley, Lily 331 Hartley, Philip 269 Haskayne, Jacqui 270 Heaton, Glen 406 Hegney, Margaret 332 Henderson, Catherine 333 Henderson, Elaine 4 Henderson, Simon 271 Henley, Dianne 226 Hewitt, David 334 Hewitt, Isaac 335 Hewitt, Louise 336 Hewitt, Sebastian 70 Hick, Anne 21 Hill, Allan 24 Hill, Teresa 407 Hilton, Gary 408 Hilton, Jacqueline 91 Hipkins, Max 409 Hjalmarsson, Angelica 410 Hjalmarsson, Antoni 461 Hobbs, Bruce and Rita 411 Hodgins, Benjamin 205 Hodgkinson, Norman 272 Holding, Julie 412 Holland, Jodie 273 Holland, Paula 274 Holst, Daphne 145 Hua, Ellen 146 Hua, Stephanie 115 Hughes, Malcolm 490 Jadveitor, Leonardo 462 Jenkins, Brian Submission Number Name 180 Jennings, Philip 174 Jobber, Peter 414 Jones, Darren 128 Jones, John 337 Jones, Kerry 206 Jones, Melanie 76 Jones, Tracey and Wylie, Sam 125 Kelly, Deborah 416 Kemp, Rodney 338 Kemps, Frederick 275 Kennedy-Baxter, Michelle 67 Kenwright, Amanda 25 Kerferd, Lloyd 276 Kewan, Gavin 277 Kewan, Susan and Bartholomeusz, Roland 175 Kilian, Rebecca 227 Kilminster, Kieryn 189 Kinsella, Paul 463 Kitson, Suzanne 147 Korb, Lara 181 Lammers, Charles 417 Lamont, Allison 278 Lantzke, Carl 339 Lauge, Alisa 196 Laura Munut 148 Law, Elizabeth 129 Lawrence, Luke 92 Lee, Penny 52 Leembruggen, Ross 53 Lees, Natalie 340 Lefroy, Joy 176 Lejeune, Russell 341 Leuzzi, Guido 342 Leuzzi, Margaret 418 Lewis, Matthew 100 Liddell, Toni 228 Ligtermoet, Gerry 190 Littleford, Kiarra 130 Lloyd, Berre 343 Long, Terry 131 Lucas, Lynn 132 Lucas, Ronald 133 Lucas, S 229 Lutton, Linley 156 Lutz, Jane 344 Lutz, John 345 Luxton, WJ and PM 346 MacFarlane, John 116 MacGill, Gerard 347 MacKenzie, Lorraine 419 MacLaren MLC, Lyn 465 MacLean, Hugh 348 MacPherson, Leigh Submission Number Name 420 Main Roads Western Australia 177 Malcolm, Graham 421 Marchant, Gunhild 349 Marchant, Les 191 Martin, Karen 230 Martin, SK 62 Martins, Alison 377 Marwick, Susan 11 Mazzucchelli, Christa on behalf of CEMIEL 466 Mazzucchelli, Richard and Brenda 279 McArthur, Sharon 350 McDermott, Peter and Diane 49 McDonnell, Kevin 231 McIntyre, Ralph 232 McKenna, Janine 233 McKinnon, Margaret 351 McLean, Carol 37 McLeod, Valerie 280 McRedmond, Emily 55 Meiklem, Jane 40 Metcalf, Fiona 352 Millar, Karen 281 Millar, Pamela and Collins, Ian 134 Miller, Ann 422 Miller, Sunny 467 Millichamp, Donna 161 Mills, Beth 101 Mills, David 13 Mills, Joyce 12 Mills, Trevor 19 Mines and Petroleum, Department of 353 Minotti, Brooke 282 Minotti, Mark and Angela 69 Mitchell, Samantha 423 Mitchell, Shaun 207 Monot, Didier 182 Mooney, Oliver 479 Moore, Michael 464 Moran, Fiona 354 Morrison, Kerry 135 Moss, Peter and Pat 192 Mumme, James 355 Munut, Alex 126 Murray, Alexander and Lurlene 136 Myers, Samantha 468 Nash, Brooke 424 Nash, Clint 27 Nelson, Dianne 28 Nelson, Jack 183 Newton, Carol 184 Newton, Fred 283 Nice, Helen 469 Nichols, Iain Submission Number Name 68 Nielsen, John 356 Nielsen, John 425 Noakes, Teresa 470 O’Callaghan, Richard and Gillian 93 O’Connell, Grainne 29 O’Connor, Matthew and Kerry 234 Ockwell, Frank 426 Ogilvie, Levon 284 Oliver, Rex 357 Orlando, Karen 34 Palmer, Richard 235 Parker, Janet 482 Parks and Wildlife, Department of 32 Parry, Betty 158 Pears, Jacob 285 Peel Preservation Group Inc 208 Pemberton, Robert 286 Penman, Oliver 358 Penny, Ivy 14 Penny, William 471 Peters, Geraldine 162 Petterson, Kristine 209 Phillips, Rachel 163 Pilgrim, Loretta 472 Pilkington, Bernadette 427 Pippet, Susan 287 Podolski, Peter 137 Pohlenz, Christa 236 Poletti, Lois 237 Poletti, Rex 46 Pommerin, Jennifer 428 Powell, Michael 288 Preston, Francine 65 Pynenburg, Theresa 436 Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd 87 Rabone, B & A 210 Rath, Mary 289 Rawlings, Graham and Gillian 238 Reed, Joan 290 Reed, Laurel 239 Rennie, Bronwyn 240 Repke, Rainer 360 Richards, Anthony 63 Richardson, Lisa 361 Ridley, JM 102 Rigby, Jody 41 Rigby, Sharon 429 Riordan, Anne 430 Rippey, Elizabeth 241 Ritchie, Kevin 88 Ritchie, William 211 Ritter, Helen 127 Rockingham Kwinana Chamber of Commerce Submission Number Name 480 Rockingham, City of 362 Rodger, Ian and Frances 431 Rodgers, Brian 363 Rose, Winston 212 Rossen, Angela 432 Russo, Alana 433 Saleeba, Craig 434 Schmidt, Susana 43 Scott, Barbara 72 Scutts, Cheryl 376 Selva, Gracie 291 Sepe, John and Anna 364 Seymour, David 365 Seymour, Jacob 366 Seymour, Joshua 367 Seymour, Karen 213 Shaw, Jenny 292 Shaw, Mandy 293 Sherry, Peter 485 Siebert, Judy 484 Siebert, Kayla 435 Sinclair, Elizabeth 103 Skeet, Maureen and Robert 168 Skinner, Phillip 488 Smart, Danial 473 Smetherham, Robert 149 Smith, David 242 Smith, Delma 491 Smith, Greg and Adams, Claire 243 Smith, Lisa 77 Smith, Matthew 81 Smith, Phyllis 294 Snashall, Kath 169 Snook, Stanley 138 Solin, Tony 80 Spiers, Darryl and Justine 244 Spiers, Stephen and Susanne 368 Sprinkel, Olivia 370 St Clair-Baker, Julie 245 St Clair-Baker, Peter 369 Stack, Sean 15 Stanners, Craig 16 Stanners, Thomas and Agnes 117 Stanton, Deidre 295 Stanton, Raya 51 State Development, Department of 437 Staude, Anita 371 Stevenson, Emma 56 Stickman, Yvonne 372 Stoll, Fiete 373 Storer, Tim 474 Storey, Dianne 44 Stubbs, Leonie Submission Number Name 164 Sturdy, Amanda 214 Sturdy, Cassandra 73 Summers, Katherine 150 Ta, Denise 89 Taranto, Felice 246 Tarrant, Stella 296 Tayler, Emma 481 Taylor Burrell Barnett on behalf of Cedar Woods Properties Limited and LandCorp 165 Taylor, Angela 247 Taylor, Jon 108 Taylor, Melanie 215 Taylor, Michelle 216 Taylor, Sandra 475 Thipthorp, Harold 486 Thipthorp, Harrison 476 Thipthorp, Jean 487 Thipthorp, Jeremy 477 Thipthorp, Nathan 217 Thompson, Geordie 248 Thompson, Judith 193 Thompson, Wendy 166 Thornton, Stephen 438 Tiao, Jim 439 Tibern, Wayne 440 Tinnock, Pauline 85 Tourism Western Australia 5 Treharne, Patricia 47 Treloar, David and Helen 61 Trewin, Barry 249 Trichet, Bronwyn 441 Turrell, Claire 442 Turrell, Leah 443 Turrell, Robert 157 Tweedie, Elizabeth 478 Tweedie, Jamie 151 Unknown 374 Unknown, Bonnie 94 Unkown 155 Urban Bushland Council WA Inc 375 Valentine, Norman 489 van Dongen, Deborah 104 Viapree, Ian 66 Wallace, Lisa 444 Waller, Jonathan 445 Wallin, Natalie 109 Warren, Leonard 110 Warren, Valerie 446 Water Corporation 78 Water, Department of 297 Waters, William and Sheila 447 Watts, Justin 448 Wearmouth, Andrew Submission Number Name 449 Webster, Terry 250 Weston, Joan and Ian 450 White, Gillian 378 White, Kim, Sylvia, Daniel and Marcus 82 Whitehead, Daniel 152 Whitehead, Pauline 379 Whyte, Keith 7 Wienczogow, Krzysztof 57 Wignall, Joan 58 Wignall, William 59 Wildenberg, Sharon 451 Wildflower Society of WA 380 Wilkinson, Sarah 105 Williams, Lidell 1 Wilson, Noelyn 298 Winkler, Rainer 299 Woolhead, Mark 194 Worth, Christine 195 Worth, David 251 Wright, Ella 30 Yates, John 153 Yong, Seok Jun 20 Young, Suzanne 218 Zoutman, Kim
Late Submissions Name 493 Laurenson, Amy 494 Mallaby, Glen 496 State Heritage Office 492 Transport, Department of 495 Welten, Maureen
Schedule 2
Summary of submissions and determinations
REFER TO THE SUBMISSIONS PUBLICATION FOR A FULL COPY OF EACH WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Submission: 1
Submitted by: Noelyn Wilson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as Bush Forever sites should be preserved for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 50, 52, 61, 62, 67, 68, 80, 127, 138, 166, 178, 244, 261, 310, 392, 481
Submitted by: Fiona & Darrey Ewen, Thelma Hannaby, Elizabeth Atkinson (Director of Pepperwood Holdings Pty Ltd), Krzysztof Wienczugow, Douglas Adamson, Bartlett Kevin Cedric, William Douglas Penny, Craig Stanners, Thomas & Agnes Stanners, A Hill, T Hill, Lloyd Kerferd, Dianne Nelson, Jack Nelson, Peter Armanasco, Richard John Palmer J.P, K Beganovic, Lesley & John Carroll, Sharron Kathleen Rigby, Richard & Wendy Ellis, Barbara Scott, Graham Gilbert, Ross Leembruggen, Barry Trewin, Amanda Kenwright, John Nielsen, Darryl & Justin Spiers, Rockingham - Kwinana Chamber of Commerce, Tony Solin, Stephen Thornton, Tom Gelling (Cruising Yacht Club of WA Inc.), Stephen & Susanne Spiers, Gordon & Kristina Cvetkovski, Ron Caporn, The Crippled Children’s Seaside Home Society Inc.
Summary of Submission: SUPPORT
• The Mangles Bay Marina has been delayed for too long and should be expedited. • The amendment will create new life and growth in the locality, improve the amenity of the locality, particularly housing and provide a safe mooring for boats.
Submissions 34 & 178 were supported by Hearings.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 4
Submitted by: Simon Henderson
Summary of Submission: N/A
No comments were provided
Planning Comment: N/A.
Determination: N/A
Submission: 5
Submitted by: Patricia Theharne
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The submitter is concerned that the dog beach could be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 9
Submitted by: Lesley Baker Hames (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it is the only a discrete marina near the current boat ramp which is supported, not canals. The Marine Park is too valuable to such a development and could be used as a tourist attraction and would be of economic benefit.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 11
Submitted by: Christa Mazzucchelli (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as a Bush Forever site would be destroyed for commercial gain. The site is the last pristine area close to Perth and will affect the beach and coastline.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 12, 13
Submitted by: Trevor Mills, Joyce Mills (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains Bush Forever area which should not be for sale. • The amendment will cause great damage to the environment and will affect the amenity of the site. • The costs of maintaining the development will be passed on to rates payers of Rockingham. • The Wanliss Street proposal is supported, not the Mangles Bay Marina. The Busselton canals are a disaster. • The natural habitat for animals will be affected. • The proposed development will never be completed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 17
Submitted by: Judith Cairns (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: SUPPORT
The amendment is supported, subject to all the necessary environmental approvals being undertaken. It is also noted that the proposal does not affect Point Peron and will enhance the locality.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 18
Submitted by: Jean Harrison (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as it will affect the environment and amenity of the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 19, 26, 31, 51, 64, 78, 84, 85, 90, 323, 420, 482, 496 (Late)
Submitted by: Department of Mines & Petroleum, Department of Fire & Emergency Services, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Department of State Development, Department of Education, Department of Water, Tourism WA, Cockburn Sound Management Council, Department of Environment Regulation, Department of Fisheries, Main Roads WA, Department of Parks & Wildlife, State Heritage Office
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The above State Government agencies and/or organisations raise no objections, no comment or provide general comments that relate to the subsequent more detailed stages of the planning and development process. Where applicable, the proponent has been advised of the above comments.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 20
Submitted by: Suzanne Young (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the amendment, as follows:
• The EPA claims the environment is under strain from sprawl, therefore the land at Point Peron should not be rezoned. • Do not support canals being built as they are a significant issue in the eastern states. • The channel is to be continually dredged. • The amenity of the locality will be affected as the site was left as a green bushland area.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 22
Submitted by: Bruce Campbell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The bush was given in perpetuity to the benefit of all people. • The land will only benefit a few rich people. • Ratepayers will be left with the burden of paying for costs. • Traffic and transport movement will cause a range of issues. • There is no priority is given to the construction of the marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 23
Submitted by: Nick Davis & Colleen Bayer (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The land is bush forever and should be retained. • The marina doesn't seem to be needed as there are large protected waters in Cockburn Sound. • Previous attempts at such development have not been successful and problematic. • The marina is a long-term plan and may never be built. • Housing may be the only thing built at this location which is not supported.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 29
Submitted by: Matthew & Kerry O'Connor (nearby residents) Summary of Submission: COMMENTS
The submission supports the amendment as the land is not pristine and used by 'hoons' on weekends. The following issues are noted:
• There will be ongoing nuisance from construction. • Rezoning to R40 (outside amendment area on Safety Bay Road, south of Parkin Street) will provide compensation from this nuisance. • Redevelopment of this area would be consistent with Mangles Bay Marina. • There is higher density in the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 30
Submitted by: John Yates (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is opposed as follows:
• It will conflict with the Shoalwater Marine Park and impact on the environment (seagrass, sea horses), depth of water. • There is a more suitable site to the north of the existing grain terminal which will generate less traffic and noise impacts and is easily accessible. • The existing Point Peron boat ramp has issues with sand build up and silting. • The amendment area has road issues and Naval Base nearby with the associated traffic can make accessing the locality difficult. Combined with plans for more defence housing will only exacerbate traffic issues. • It is also a security issue with the Naval Base facility nearby.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 32
Submitted by: Betty Parry (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Why should boat owners be provided with pens as they will pollute the water and close off parts of the beach? • High rise plastic boat pens are being built elsewhere and do less damage. • The City has encouraged water sports and the area has improved dramatically, this proposal will not preserve this amenity. • The proposed marina will cause long-term issues to resolve.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 35
Submitted by: Paul Harris (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The submission advises as follows:
• The name Bush Forever is misleading, these areas could be renamed Parks and Recreation reservation or become a National Park. • The Parks and Recreation reservation could be amended by increasing it to the boundary of Point Peron Road. As the proposed foreshore area is too small in size and this area could be included in the abutting foreshore area. • These modifications would provide pedestrian focused areas with connections to safe useable spaces and a clear commitment to the preservation, improvement and management of the waterfront area.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 36
Submitted by: No Name
Summary of Submission: N/A
Blank submission form received.
Planning Comment: N/A
Determination: N/A
Submission: 37
Submitted by: Valerie McLeod (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The local infrastructure would be inadequate, particularly the local road network which will not be able to cope. • The City of Rockingham will be paying a lot for the maintenance of the marina. • A marina at Port Kennedy would be a better option, with Point Peron becoming a park, similar to Kings Park with cafes etc.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 40
Submitted by: Fiona Metcalf (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The Point Peron locality has a historical recreational connection to many people and should not be destroyed. • There is an opportunity to create a Kings Park of south at Point Peron, which is currently visited by many people. • The proposal will impact on the Little Penguin which is used as an icon of the locality. • The cost to the City of Rockingham will be great and the community will want to stop any development of this site.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 44
Submitted by: Leonie Stubbs (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land was provided from the Commonwealth to the State for open space purposes. • There should be no canal development, as they are an environmental risk and subject to storm risks. • The other marina in Rockingham is supported compared to the Mangles Bay proposal. • The development is against the EPA’s concerns regarding the loss of bushland, this has been acknowledged by the WAPC. The proposal will impact Lake Richmond and the Little Penguins. • The majority of Rockingham resident do not want the proposal, and prefer that money was spent improving Point Peron. • Environmental offsets will be required which do nothing to protect and conserve the environment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 45
Submitted by: Dominique Griffiths (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Lake Richmond will be impacted from the development. • The existing sea life and fauna will be significantly impacted by the development. • The proposal does not accord with Bush forever. This land was for all West Australians not a minority of boat owners. • Ratepayers will be burdened by the ongoing cost of the marina and the negative impacts on the marina. • The land should be transformed into a park which can be used by all for generations and will encourage tourists to the use the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 46
Submitted by: Does not want name released (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The engineering required at the site will not be compatible the natural biology of the locality. • The disturbance of Acid Sulfate soils will cause significant problems in the locality. • The development will cause antisocial behaviour and the additional need for policing. • The relocation of the Rockingham main drain flows into Mangles, via Lake Richmond which will impact the Threatened Ecological Community of Thrombolites. • The ecological protection areas do not have fences etc, this will impact the passage of animals etc and will be an issue associated with spills etc. • The submitter questions the timing of staging of the canal/marina component of the proposal. If there are delays it will create a dust pit. • All the controls etc, will be difficult to implement, who monitors the monitor?
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 47
Submitted by: David & Helen Treloar (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The Hines organisation has an unbreakable lease why should this be rezoned? • The proposal is disguised as a marina, but it’s actually for residential development to benefit the developer, with no guarantee of a marina. • The land is Bush Forever and should not be used for Urban, as there are many other alternatives. • The Mangles Bay area is inappropriate for environmental reasons for a marina. • The State undervalues the land and seafloor, heavily subsidising the development. • The dewatering will affect nearby properties and possibly Lake Richmond. • If higher density is required then it should occur now, not allowing the developer to landbank.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 48
Submitted by: GG & RM Barritt (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The environment will be impacted negatively. The area has native vegetation which is well maintained and is home to a range of bird and reptile species. • Point Peron and Lake Richmond are part of the Rockingham Regional Park and contains the Thrombolites. • Mangles Bay contains numerous fish species etc. • There would be an increase in traffic flow throughout the locality. The area is experiencing traffic and the proposed development will exacerbate this. The road upgrading will destroy the environment. • In 1964 an agreement was reached that the land would be transferred to the State for conservation purposes. The proposal is not consistent with this agreement. • The proposal would not be consistent with Bush Forever. What happens to other Bush Forever areas? • The balance of Cape Peron could be developed and there is the need to construct the balance of Garden Island Highway. • Canal estates cause a range of financial burdens in the future and environment impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 49
Submitted by: Kevin McDonnell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will cause environment impacts and should not be developed. • The development of walking trails and observation areas for flora and fauna are supported. • Bush Forever should be retained and not redeveloped. • Lake Richmond locality of sensitive and the proposed development will cause impacts. • Move the marina to the Rockingham foreshore area where less damage will occur. • Ratepayers should not have to fund future maintenance etc. The developers and future landowners should pay future costs.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 53
Submitted by: Natalie Lees (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal would remove parts of Bush Forever which should remain as originally proposed. • The proposed marina is not needed as another proposed marina with less environmental damage has approval. • Climate change is threat and the land is a refuge for flora and fauna.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 54
Submitted by: J Buckland (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The amendment area is the only remnant vegetation area. • Although a little degraded, it still has trees and shrubs for wildlife. White-tailed Cockatoos feed on the trees, where do these birds go if the vegetation is cleared? • The pelican colony will be impacted by the development. The Thrombolites and Lake Richmond will be impacted. • The people of WA were given the land which should be retained.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 55
Submitted by: Jane Meiklem (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: No Comment
Blank submission form received.
Planning Comment: N/A
Determination: N/A
Submission: 56
Submitted by: Yvone Strickman (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it would impact on the environment. Rockingham needs more natural areas, which can be used for tourists to relax and enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 57, 58
Submitted by: Joan Wignall, William Wignall (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal is inconsistent with a 1964 land agreement for the land to be used for recreational/conservation purposes. • The marina for public use is supported, but private and commercial development is not. • Bush Forever should not be redeveloped as it belongs to all persons. • The proposal will impact on Lake Richmond. • This section of the coast is prone to silting so dredging will be required which will be a financial cost. • The Wanliss Street marina is a better alternative.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 59
Submitted by: Sharon Wildenberg (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreational purposes and contains a range of flora and fauna. • The proposed development will destroy the natural environment and can easily be accessed elsewhere such as in Mandurah. • The proposal will impact on the use of the site and amenity of the locality. • The proposal will affect the health and wellbeing of people. • The site has cultural value which should not be destroyed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 60
Submitted by: Moira Bandt (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is subject to a 1964 agreement to use the site for recreational or open space purposes. • The site is used for recreational uses and is a Bush Forever area which should not be rezoned. • The proposal will exacerbate health and obesity issues and does not build on past efforts to retain such areas for future generations. • The site should be developed in a sympathetic manner so all can use it.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 62
Submitted by: Alison Martins (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was part of a signed agreement between State and Federal Government to use the site for recreational/conservation purposes. • The proposal will cause significant environmental impacts and an increase in rates which ratepayers will have to accept. • The area should be developed so it can be used by all (including tourists). • The site has historically been used for a range of recreation uses and should remain for future generations. • There are health risks with canal developments, such as mosquito impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 63
Submitted by: Lisa Richardson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is used for recreational purposes. • The site links Shoalwater Marine Park, Point Peron and Lake Richmond. There is no opportunity for marina-based tourist attraction. • Nature based tourism will be a better option than a marina development.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 65
Submitted by: Teresa Pynenburg (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was given to the people of WA and should be kept as Bush Forever for future generations. • The proposal will impact on the environment. • The proposal will benefit a few people only. • The site should be used as a world class tourist park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 66
Submitted by: Lisa Wallace (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was part of a 1964 agreement for the people of WA to use for recreational/conservation purposes, not for development purposes. • The area is used for a range of recreational purposes. Tourists prefer nature based activities not artificial development. • The marina is so far from everywhere and will not attract tourists.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 69
Submitted by: Samantha Mitchell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the protection of the environment is more important than expensive houses. The site is used for recreational purposes and should remain. Supporting information was provided with this submission.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 70
Submitted by: Anne Hick (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is a Bush Forever area and should not be rezoned. • The Point Peron area is a unique buffer area and includes important local species. • The marina divides the walking beach to Kwinana. • There will be burden on ratepayers from dredging requirements. • Seagrass replanting has not been successful in the past.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 71
Submitted by: Ian Hall (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There is no need for more residential development. Not all the population increase in Perth will reside in the locality. There is enough high density already in Rockingham. • Who will manage the marina and future maintenance requirements? Ratepayers should not have to pay.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 72
Submitted by: Cheryl Scutts (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is used for recreational purposes. • There may be an impact on seagrasses and fish populations. • The 1964 agreement was for the site to be used for recreational/open space purposes. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 73
Submitted by: Katherine Summers (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreational purposes and should be retained. • No one wants a canal development in this locality. • The proposal will destroy the environment. • The proposal will impact on the health and wellbeing of people just to benefit a few. • The 1964 Act was to retain the site for conservation/recreation purposes, not be developed for a marina. • This is a low socioeconomic community who cannot fight the Government or business. • The 10 day submission period under the EPBC Act is too short. The environment should be given substantial weight in any decisions.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 74
Submitted by: Kelly Bradford (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land was gifted to the State with no private commercial or industrial development. • The proposal will impact on the ecosystem of the locality, such as the fish, penguins, pelicans etc. • Tourists would rather enjoy the local flora and fauna of the locality rather than a marina. • The Mandurah marina is a good example of how such a development has not worked well. • Canal developments are banned in NSW and Victoria due to economic and environmental impacts. This marina is not needed as there is another marina in Rockingham which has been approved. • The Government has had to rescue the Port Geographe development, why would such a marina be built here? • The commercial development part of the proposal will be an economic disaster. • What impact would it have on Lake Richmond and the surrounding area, such as the rare Thrombolites, groundwater salinity?
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 75
Submitted by: William M Grauug (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The Bush Forever area has been used for recreational purposes and should remain. The site should be zoned Bush Forever for future generations. • The beach (and associated activities) at Point Peron will be impacted. This will lead to health issues given the restriction to recreation uses. • The land was part of a 1964 agreement where the State was to use the site for recreation/conservation purposes. • Independent studies confirm that the Little Penguin (and other animals) will be impacted by the proposed development. • The proposal will take 20 years to be finalised and will cause traffic impacts in the locality. • The proposal will lead to homogenous housing estates in the locality, it would be better to increase the density in existing areas. • The proposal will change the roads and waters of Mangles Bay affecting the community use of the locality. • The proposal will require dredging which will cause heavy metals to be stirred up, impacting on fish stocks and being able to recreate at the site. • A coastal park should be supported for this site. • There is health risks associated with a marina, such as Ross River Virus. • There is a loss of public foreshore land for the construction of the marina. • The viability and staging/timing of components of the marina have been raised. • 44 ha of the open space is being lost. This site is a unique site which should be protected. • There will be financial impacts on the State, and rates will rise to fund this (i.e. Geographe Bay). • What mitigation procedures will there be for the dredging? • Scientists and engineers are concerned about the hydrology of the site and effect on Lake Richmond and Thrombolites. • There has been reference to George Seddon's "Sense of Place" and association with this site.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 76
Submitted by: Tracey Jones & Sam Wylie (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has recreational and environmental values which should be retained and protected. • It should be modelled on Rottnest Island as a family haven with sustainable principles. • An authority should oversee the Point Peron islands to Rottnest, just like the Whitsunday Islands.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 77
Submitted by: Matthew Lawson R Smith (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land was transferred to the State in order to be used for recreational/conservation area. • The site has significant recreation and conservation values which should be retained. • The marina will destroy the environment and take years to create. • The proposal will impact on the environment (Little Penguin) and will be a cost to the taxpayer to benefit the minority of the population. • A coastal park will be a better option for the site and will not cost as much. This will attract more tourists etc.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 79
Submitted by: Lorraine Bratt (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The submitter refers to Dr Mike Van Keulen (School of Biological Sciences & Biotechnology Murdoch University) who is a leading seagrass expert. • The Mangles Bay and Point Peron region is highly disturbed and vulnerable to further impacts from development. • The proposal represents a significant risk to marine and terrestrial environments, and is not suitable for such a development. • The proponents are relying of incorrect seagrass shoot density cards by the Cockburn Sound Management Council. • The prosed access channel will intersect seagrass meadow and associated impacts on the ecosystem.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 81
Submitted by: Phyllis Smith (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land is a Bush Forever area which should be retained. Building a marina is not supported at this site and should be at Wanliss Street. The site has been used for recreation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 82
Submitted by: Daniel Whitehead (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will create a dangerous, expensive and unnecessary marina. • There are cheaper and more practical options to regenerate Rockingham, such as a coastal park and a marina at Wanliss Street. • Scientific studies have concluded that the site is unsuitable for a marina from an environmental perspective which will need ratepayer’s money. • The area is used for recreational purposes and should not be rezoned.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 83
Submitted by: Phillip Doring (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The loss of Bush Forever is not supported. • The loss is seagrass is alarming. • Given the proximity to Lake Richmond and potential negative impacts. • Concerned about water modelling undertaken for the site.
A letter from Senator Scott Ludlam (and associated report) was also provided.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 86
Submitted by: George Burns (Adjunct Professor)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment given the likely impacts on the community’s health and wellbeing. As populations and urban density increases mental health issues rise. Rapidly increasing urbanisation has major health implications. Rates of schizophrenia increase for people born and raised in cities.
Access to natural environments has many positive health and mental health benefits. In a study of green space useability and health across four suburbs in Perth concluded that access to parks and green spaces within residential neighbourhoods has been shown to be an important pathway to generating better physical and mental health for individuals and communities. Urban parks and green spaces provide places for sport and active recreation, places to relax and enjoy solitude etc.
Proximity to nearby play and social spaces was associated with better mental health, perhaps through increased opportunity for social interaction. The retention of green space and bushland was associated with better physical function, hypothesising that the size and diversity of landscape increased opportunities to be physically active for longer in a larger space. Green space useability was associated with better general health and vitality, encouraging and enabling regular visitation which, in itself, was associated with greater vitality.
These are the very features that Cape Peron already has along with seascapes and sunsets – and are incorporated in the Cape Peron Coastal Park concept plan but will be lost to a Mangles Bay Marina type rezoning.
Worldwide, there is a rapid escalation in the rates of depression. How can we create an environment that will best facilitate the health and happiness of our citizens? How can we preserve and provide access to those environments that best facilitate our citizens' physical and mental wellbeing?
It has been found that simply viewing natural landscapes (such as the Cape Peron Coastal Plan) gave a stronger positive health effect compared to built urban landscapes (such as the Mangles Bay Marina) in three areas: short-term recovery from stress or mental fatigue, faster physical recovery from illness and long-term overall improvement on people's health and wellbeing.
The likely impacts on community health and wellbeing of the Cape Peron Coastal Park
Research shows clearly that human access to and contact with undeveloped natural environments has many physical, psychological, cultural, spiritual and social benefits. Contact with nature is healing, recuperative, restorative, stress reducing, and depression reducing. Contact with nature enhances wellbeing and happiness, live longer and enjoy a greater quality of life. The happier people are the less they are likely to experience depression, anxiety, stress or anger. They contribute to society in economic, social, moral, spiritual and psychological terms, and are less of a burden to health services, social welfare agencies or police and justice systems.
Nature Contact Benefits Physical Wellbeing
Research has affirmed that interactions with nature improve our physical wellbeing and may help prevent disease. Contact with nature promotes healthy patterns of behaviour and the onset of health problems.
Nature contact serves a health enhancing, disease preventing role in that our bodies generally function more healthily in nature settings. Nature contact is not just preventative but can also be healing. It has been found that people visiting an urban forest and a city park experienced a recovery ratio for pre-existing headaches of 52%. Indices such as heart rate, skin conductance, blood pressure and muscle tension, show movements in positive physiological directions.
There is good evidence that psychologically robust, happy, positive and optimistic people generally have higher levels of physical wellbeing, suffer less severe illness, live longer and if they do become ill have better recovery rates.
The State Planning Strategy 2050 states that "If an additional 40% of the Australian population engaged in regular, moderate and effective exercise, an estimated net benefit of $6.5 million per day would result from the reduced costs associated with heart disease, back pain, increased workplace productivity and reduced absenteeism.
"People who use public open spaces are three times more likely to achieve recommended levels of physical activity than those who do not use the spaces. "Walking an extra hour a week represents 40% of the average person's physical activity target and it halves the risk of being overweight."
If the direct health benefits alone are not a sufficiently strong enough argument for preserving accessible natural environments such as Cape Peron, then the secondary gains in significantly reduced health, medical and hospital costs to the community surely is.
The Natural Environment Enhances Psychological Wellbeing
There is good evidence that nature contact evokes emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses that are conducive to happiness and contentment. At the emotional level, human interaction with nature can enhance states of positive feelings, provide a buffer against emotional distress, serve a preventative role in the area of mental health, restore emotional wellbeing, and have an "undoing" effect on negative emotions.
At the cognitive level, people tend to concentrate better in natural environments while children suffering Attention Deficit Disorder have better focus of attention, completion of tasks, and following of instructions. At the behavioural level, interacting with nature can increase more health oriented behaviours and eliminate less healthy behaviours such as those related to smoking, alcohol, drugs and overeating. The State Planning Strategy 2050 states, "Retaining natural bushland and coastal areas that are accessible is essential to human health and a sense of wellbeing.
"People are often attracted to spaces and places with iconic landscapes, unique histories, exciting activities or which provide an overall calming influence. These spaces and places offer people inspiration, stress relief, aesthetic values and a sense of spirituality and belonging."
"Nature and access to natural environments can reduce the impact of life stress on children and help them deal with adversity. The greater their exposure to nature, the greater the benefits". Cape Peron should be preserved as an attractive, accessible coastal park for future generations.
Nature Interaction Benefits Social Wellbeing
Many studies have explored the health and social wellbeing status of people living in high density urban public housing developments. Those residents who preferred and frequented treed public spaces as compared to those who spent more time in treeless areas spoke more to other people, communicated better, were more likely to know their neighbours by name, and reported feeling a greater sense of community.
Interactions with Nature Assist Spiritual Wellbeing
Spiritual beliefs and cultural values are often tied closely to nature. In nature people commonly experience a feeling of connectedness with forces bigger and more powerful than ourselves. In nature we may encounter experiences of transformation, develop inner reflection and contemplation, facilitate personal growth, build a sense of spiritual wellbeing, or experience feelings of wholeness and belonging.
How Does This Research Evidence Apply to the Cape Peron Coastal Park
Cape Peron offers the very types of human nature interactions that researchers have demonstrated are essential to human wellbeing. Positive physical and emotional benefits increase with the length of time and the level of activity that people engage in while in urban nature areas. Cape Peron provides the activities these researchers described as 'less strenuous' (e.g. walking, relaxing, sightseeing, watching sunsets) and 'more active’ that provide greater benefit. Cape Peron already accommodates this entire but will be severely limited to provide these essential opportunities for individual and community health and wellbeing if the land is rezoned as urban and utilized for the proposed Mangles Bay Marina development.
Research in environmental psychology suggests that people's desire for contact with nature serves an important adaptive function, namely, psychological restoration. Communities should be balanced with satisfactory access to nature experience because urban nature is a design option that promotes urban sustainability. In the Rockingham region, this design option currently exists in Cape Peron. To lose it to the proposed Mangles Bay Marina development would be a backward step for both urban sustainability and human health and wellbeing.
The greater the diversity of nature, the greater the diversity of sensory experiences the environment provides for the person interacting with it, the greater the health and restorative benefits people derive from it. Cape Peron provides uniquely diverse nature experiences from treed areas, undulating landscape, coastal views, seascapes, various rock formations, beaches, wildlife in the dolphins, sea lions and passing whales, and a variety of terrestrial and marine birdlife and other wildlife. It also allows for a broad diversity of activities as mentioned above.
Perth’s planners had foresight in preserving King's Park as one of the world's largest inner capital city parks. While not as large, and different in many ways, the principal of preserving Cape Peron as a nature preserve for locals and visitors will equally enrich the community in the City of Rockingham and beyond.
Cape Peron and the Shoalwater “A” Class Marine Sanctuary on its southern side is the only such coastal park in the whole of the greater Perth region or the whole of Western Australia. It allows residents of our state, and visitors, to view and interact with marine animals and birdlife in a way that is unique to this particular park and that adds to human wellbeing.
With the population of Rockingham forecast to increase to 178,000 in 20 years, the need to preserve natural urban green areas such as Cape Peron will become more critical. As populations increase and people become more urbanised we need more nature access, not less, and therefore need to act now to preserve Cape Peron.
In 2012, the submitter was invited participant at the United Nations (New York) where member nations voted for adopting a more holistic approach to development in preference to the world's current economic paradigm based predominantly on financial indicators. The meeting included some of the world's top scientists and thinkers from many disciplines. It was agreed, "Achieving this vision (of a new developmental paradigm based on wellbeing more than monetary gain) requires that we recognise our interdependence with nature and with each other. It requires a healthy balance among thriving natural, human, social, cultural, and built assets.
When all member nations agree that we should not be selling off our natural assets but rather retaining them and learning to benefit from the interest generated by those assets, it would seem prudent for the WAPC to be considering and incorporating these universally international agreed principles into its planning decisions for Cape Peron.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 87
Submitted by: Mr & Mrs Rabone (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows: • The site was provided by the Federal Government to the State to be used for recreation/conservation purposes. • Rather than the proposed development, the funds could be used to upgrade paths, lighting etc. • Port Geographe was a disaster which should not be replicated in Mangles Bay. • Point Peron is known for its beauty and bushland and should be enjoyed by future generations. • Object to a marina which severs the land and will need to be maintained in future by ratepayers. • The proposal will impact on the seagrass and associated marina life.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 88
Submitted by: Willian Gray Richie (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site will have sand movements and therefore dredging will be required. • The removal of vegetation will impact on flora and fauna of the locality. • There will be negative impacts from the expanding impacts of navy and associated personnel accessing Garden Island, which will affect the amenity of the locality. • There may the carriage of explosives which residents may object to. • Boats will impact on the fairy penguins in the locality. • There was no effect on seagrass meadows before and after construction of the Causeway. • The visit of nuclear powered submarine will cause complaints from residents. An emergency evacuation plan would be required. • The proposal includes a significant residential area which will be built before any marina is constructed. • Additional information was provided regarding surveys and investigations into the marine environment of Cockburn Sound.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 89
Submitted by: Felice Taranto (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should not be developed for a marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 91
Submitted by: Max Hipkins (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as Cape Peron is an iconic Perth landscape and should not proceed. George Seddon’s “Sense of Place” was referred to.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 92
Submitted by: Penny Lee (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron must remain a Bush Forever site as it has historical connections for many people. • Canal developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. • Although the need for greater density is noted, the preservation of such areas will be important.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 93
Submitted by: Grainne O’Connell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land is a Bush Forever site which should remain for future generations. The site has been used for educational and recreational uses and should continue.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 94
Submitted by: Mirabilis (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it threatens endangered Thrombolites in the adjacent Lake Richmond.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 95, 98, 104
Submitted by: Kerstin Beckmann, Tracy Evans, Ian Viapree (nearby or interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron was given to the people of WA in 1964 by the Commonwealth, to be used for recreation/conservation purposes, not a marina. • The proposal would impact on the flora and fauna of the locality and would destroy up to 40 ha. • The Government has already spent money to fix Port Geographe, and canal developments are banned in Victoria and NSW because of their impacts. • Point Peron is a recreational place used for all persons, which should be protected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 96
Submitted by: Fiona Brown (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land should remain Bush Forever as it is more suited to a coastal park. • The Rockingham community will be negatively affected by traffic and construction activities. • Noise and dust impacts will result from the canal development. • The loss of open space is not acceptable for future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 97
Submitted by: Dr Ronald Chapman (Historian)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission provided a historical report in relation to the proposed amendment, and concludes that the proposal should not be supported.
The area in question is wrongly termed 'Mangles Bay Marina' and the project for which the MRS is sought is incorrectly described as 'Mangles Bay Marina Based Tourist Precinct.' The subject area is not in Mangles Bay and the proposed development comprises an excavated inland canal housing estate with marina facilities. It covers a total area of 105.34 ha, which includes 43.16 ha of land designated as 'Bush Forever'.
This report begins by examining various documents relating to the status of the land at Cape Peron. It then explores the Rockingham community's historical connection to the area, focusing on social and recreational land usage, and an alternative proposal for a Cape Peron Coastal Park. Finally, the report considers whether or not the proposed MRS and the construction of an inland canal estate and marina reflect the spirit and intentions of the historical evidence regarding the use of land at Point Peron.
The historical record shows that public officials, the media and the general public have, over many years, commonly used the expression 'Point Peron' to describe all of the land that comprises 'Cape Peron'. This includes the land subject to the MRS.
The Land
As early as the 1930’s the Rockingham Road Board began to appreciate the growing popularity of Cape Peron as a picnic area and 'pleasure resort' and became alarmed about the likelihood of the Commonwealth government increasing its leases. In light of the current proposal to restrict public access to a sizeable portion of Cape Peron through the construction of an inland marina and housing estate and to gain some appreciation of local government thinking at the time, it is worth quoting a section of a 1930 Perth Sunday Times newspaper article:
“The local road board moved in the matter and secured an assurance that further leases would not be granted under any consideration.
In fact, an ordinance went forth from the Federal Officer in charge to the effect that Point Peron was to be regarded as virtually a class “A” reserve, and as such was to be preserved for the use of the people generally. Point Peron is one of the few pleasure resorts along the coast within reasonable distance of the metropolis, and as such should not be leased or chopped about for the benefit of a few individuals who can afford to erect week-end cottages there. For those who can so indulge there is ample coastline for their purpose elsewhere.”
Since the early 1950’s both the Commonwealth and State governments had recognised that Cape Peron needed improvement and proper management. In 1956 the Commonwealth government, who had vested control of the land, leased most of Cape Peron to the Western Australian government. The situation changed in January 1964, when the state government agreed to a Commonwealth proposal that the Point Peron land (including the land now subject to the MRS) be transferred to the State of Western Australia 'subject to the existing leases and subject also to the future use of the area being restricted to a reserve for Recreation and/or Park Lands, in consideration of a cash payment of £30,460 by the State.
The agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia was recorded further in the notes of a Point Peron Lands committee meeting held on 25 June 1964, when it was confirmed that:
“Negotiations have been completed between the Commonwealth and State Governments to transfer approximately 443 acres, at Point Peron to the State. The transfer of the property was on condition that existing leases be protected and also the area was restricted to "a reserve for recreation and/or park lands".
In late 1968 the agreement was tested when it was reported that Western Australian Premier Sir David Brand had spoken to Prime Minister Gorton about the possibility of using some of the Point Peron land for a sewage treatment plant and commercial transport facilities. The Prime Minister responded that the Western Australian government could develop about 70 or 80 ha for the stated uses, provided the land was not used for private, commercial or residential development.
Earlier in the year the Returned Sailors Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League (RSL), Rockingham Sub-Branch, had written to Prime Minister Gorton voicing concerns that an area of land at Point Peron that had been leased to the RSL in 1947 by the Commonwealth was being threatened by state government plans to develop the land for industrial purposes. The organisation advised that the Rockingham Sub-Branch had built a hall on the land, and twenty cottages had been erected by its members 'purely for recreation and enjoyment'. They argued strongly for Point Peron to be declared an “A” Class reserve in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth when the land was transferred to the State of Western Australia in 1964.
The long-established RSL Perth Sub-branch holiday camp on Mangles Bay, which has military and social heritage values, faces destruction under the Mangles Bay Marina proposal, as does the adjacent AIW holiday camp, which also has significant social heritage value. Later in the following year the West Australian newspaper reported a statement by the Premier about the future of Point Peron:
“Sir David said government departments and the Rockingham Shire Council were being asked to prepare a master plan for the development of Point Peron as a park and recreational reserve. The amenities of the area would progressively become available to the general public, instead of being restricted to certain groups.” Questions in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly in late 1973 about public recreational use of Point Peron demonstrated the Shire of Rockingham's support for increased public recreation on the land at the time. The Minister for Recreation, the Hon. T. D. Evans, responded:
“The Rockingham Shire Council through its representatives on the Greater Peron Development Committee, some time ago expressed the opinion that the general public should be given greater access to the land on Point Peron. Accordingly when in February 1973 the Town Planning Department re-designed the reduced lease area, provision was made for increased access by the general public.”
In December 2000, an area of 93.55 ha of land at Point Peron was designated as Bush Forever Site No. 355. At its introduction, the Bush Forever policy's declared objective was to:
“...guide future decision-making and to protect and manage Bush Forever sites.. .Bush Forever is about protecting the quality of our environment. It is also about consultation, evaluation, negotiation, and in some cases compromise, to create opportunities for the shared protection and management of regionally significant bushland by governments, individual landowners and the community.”
The 2010 Rockingham Lakes Regional Park Management Plan highlights the outstanding conservation and recreational values of Cape Peron and sets out a plan for its sustainable management as an integral and unique feature of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. The Plan identifies Cape Peron as 'by far the most visited site within the Regional Park', with an estimated 120,000 visits per year. A 2005 survey showed that 68% of visitors were local residents and 21% were from the broader Perth metropolitan area. Popular activities at Cape Peron included fishing, swimming snorkelling, boating, windsurfing, jet-skiing, scuba diving, picnicking, walking and nature observation. The Management Plan concludes:
“Cape Peron is notable for the breadth of coastal recreation opportunities it offers and for its scenic views... The Cape's accessibility and high scenic value make it a favourite sightseeing destination... The Recreation Masterplan aims to enhance recreation and aesthetic values through facilitating upgrades and rehabilitation of degraded areas... Detailed planning has been completed specifically for Cape Peron, which includes site design plans, as well as landscape management and development guidelines which outline ways of preserving and enhancing the area's landscape values.”
Since the current proposal for an inland canal estate at Cape Peron was announced, coastal environment groups have recognised that the limitation on land use stipulated in the 1964 agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian state government was a crucial factor in opposing the development.
In late 2011, the Hands Off Point Peron group wrote to Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation, seeking confirmation that the Commonwealth would ensure that the conditions restricting use of the land to 'recreation and/or park lands' would be maintained.
Senator Wong stated that while the Commonwealth was not in a position to require that the Western Australian government maintain Point Peron as recreation and/or park lands, the Federal Government has an expectation that the WA Government will honour the undertakings previously given in relation to the site.
The Point Peron land use limitation imposed within the 1964 agreement that 'the future use of the area being restricted to a reserve for Recreation and/or Park Lands' is not only fundamentally important with respect to the legal argument surrounding the status of the land, but also raises the question why, at that particular time, it was thought necessary to impose the transfer condition.
Land and Recreation
There is a wealth of historical evidence to demonstrate how Cape Peron has been continuously used as a popular area of recreation for both local Rockingham residents and visitors. In his study of local picnic areas in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Mervyn Bell notes how 'Parties also went to Point Peron where there were interesting walks overlooking the sea and a spot of fishing was enjoyed.' Local historian Richard Draper observes how fishing, both recreational and professional, has been a prominent pastime of the Rockingham and Safety Bay communities for decades, with a group of Italian fishermen operating from Point Peron in 1912.
Apparently fishing in the area was also popular with government ministers. It was reported in January 1949 that the Minister for Lands, Mr L. Thorn, had resumed his official duties after having a fishing holiday at Point Peron.
By the early 1920’s Rockingham’s potential as a venue for leisure activities was being recognised. In March 1922, the officer-in-charge of the Perth Tourist Bureau, Mr S. J. Hayward, visited Rockingham with the object of gaining support from the local road board to develop the area as a holiday resort. During his time in Rockingham, Hayward emphasised the district's holiday assets such as 'the fine Rockingham beach, the adjacent lakes, beautiful Point Peron, and the rear islands.' It would seem his efforts were successful because by the 1930’s Rockingham was being heralded as 'a holiday resort which is hard to beat' and that:
“South of Rockingham a track leads to Cape Peron, a very popular picnic and camping spot. From the rocky cape, around which breakers swirl and foam, an ocean panorama takes in Garden Island, Penguin Island, Seal Island and Bird Island. There is here a strip of beach ideal for bathing, and the surrounding ground is thickly covered with wild couch grass.”
Len Tye, a Rockingham resident recalled memories of his childhood living at Point Peron from 1938 after his father acquired one of eight 'squatters huts' situated on the shoreline of Mangles Bay. He remembered how his friends called their house a 'Fisherman's Camp' and how:
“.. .to us kids it was a marvellous beach house where we didn't have to wash the beach sand off our feet whenever we came home from a swim and we had our own swimming pool right out in front of our house and in the summer months we spent most of the days enjoying the beach and swimming….Len also recalled how a lease had been granted to Peron House, a large two-storey building, which was hired out to 'many country people who enjoyed a good holiday at a reasonable price.”
The idea of people travelling from country areas to Cape Peron to experience the area's unique environment had not been lost on the Western Australian government, when in 1946 the National Fitness Council opened the Point Peron Youth Camp. At the official opening the Minister for Education and chairman of the National Fitness Council, Mr J. T. Tonkin said:
“This occasion marks an important milestone in the development of Western Australia. The camp is designed to make it possible for children living in outback areas to have a new environment and a chance of broadening their experiences and to have opportunities which have formerly been more readily available to children living in the more settled areas. One of the most serious difficulties faced by the Education Department is the provision of equality of opportunity to outback children.” The Director of Education, Mr Murray Little, said it was the policy of the Fitness Council and the Department to bring children from the country to give them a holiday and change of climate, and at the same time enable them to carry on with their educational activities.
While the Department of the Interior had decided not to permit the building of private houses at Point Peron the need for holiday accommodation in the area was growing, and the Rockingham Road Board started negotiations with the department for small houses to be erected. In the late 1940s the Road Board controlled about 300 acres of land at Point Peron and in November 1949 special camping and caravan areas were designated for the holiday season.
During the 1950s a number of educational and recreational camps were established at Cape Peron when the land was leased by the Commonwealth for recreational purposes. The Education Department opened a camp school, which was located near the National Fitness facility and supervised by a succession of teachers. The school continues to be valued by the community 'as a long-standing and popular venue for educational and recreational activities. A 1984 guidebook for teachers conducting environmental education at Point Peron praised the camp school's location, which:
“...enables easy access to the Cockburn Sound area for the study of its coastal ecology as well as its complex, interrelated and often conflicting land uses, and the associated social, political and ecological problems. A school camp programme should provide opportunity for many aspects of the curriculum to be included. Programmes suited to the needs of on individual groups can provide rewarding academic and social experiences.”
It was also from the 1950’s that a variety of organisations decided to take advantage of the recreational facilities offered at Cape Peron. In January 1952 the University of Western Australia organized a camp for disadvantaged children who had never had a proper holiday. The camp was run by undergraduates from the university and financed from donations and money raising efforts of the students. A full programme of activities had been arranged, which included swimming, fishing, sand castle building, and a concert in the evening. In 1958 the Australian Postal Institute decided to go ahead with a Point Peron holiday home scheme. The object of the venture was 'to provide suitable holiday accommodation, at a reasonable rental, for members of the Postal Institute and their families.'
An appreciation of the growing popularity of Cape Peron as a site for public recreation and social activities can be gauged from a response in the Legislative Assembly of the Western Australian Parliament in November 1973 to a question requesting a list of Point Peron leaseholders. In his reply, Mr T. D. Evans, Minister for Recreation, named 22 leaseholders.
In 1979, the Rockingham Shire Council published Rockingham Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, which contained a brief historical look at the Rockingham district from 1829 to 1979 and some thoughts about the district's future. Cape Peron featured prominently in the publication. Once again, it is worth quoting extensively in order to gain some appreciation of local government thinking at the time:
“Point Peron juts out into the Indian Ocean just west of the causeway. Here many clubs and societies have established recreation camps for their members, so during the mid-seventies there were more than 350 holiday recreation units.
Point Peron, one of the favourite recreation areas for tourists, weekend visitors and residents alike... This area holds something for everyone - the shallow beaches are a safe swimming area for families with young children, the waters abound with a variety of fish and the rocky point area is used by teachers on field trips to explain 'first hand' the variety of coastal geological formations caused by sedimentary deposition and wind and water erosion... The Fairy Penguins of Penguin Island are one of the tourist attractions of the Rockingham District.”
Cape Peron holds a special place in the hearts of many Rockingham people, and in more recent times any plans which threaten to alter Cape Peron's unique environment or restrict access to its recreational amenities have met with strong opposition. Local residents are keen to protect and preserve Cape Peron, not simply for their own sake, but for the benefit of future generations.
At one of many demonstrations against the proposed inland marina, a Shoalwater resident who had lived near Point Peron for 40 years said his children had grown up in the area and believed it was not right that it would be destroyed for 'for the sake of a few boat pens.' In a visit to Rockingham in September 2012, Bill Marmion, a previous Environment Minister, recognised Point Peron as a 'special place' and recalled his earlier experiences there:
“I know that a lot of the baby boomers know the area very well because a lot of us went there on camp and a lot of West Australians actually do have a bit of a soft spot for Point Peron because they have either gone there in their last year of school or to the caravan park with family, so they do find it a special place.”
Senator the Hon. Lynn MacLaren presented a petition in the Western Australian Legislative Council containing 8,191 signatures against the proposed Mangles Bay Marina-Based Tourist Precinct. The petition opposed the proposed 'private canal housing, marina and commercial development', and requested support for 'the setting aside of the land as an "A" class reserve for its original purposed of 'Recreation and/or Park Lands', for the enjoyment of all people.'
A Park for the People
In May 2015, Rockingham coastal environment groups launched the 'Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan'. The plan offers a comprehensive vision for the future of the Cape Peron peninsula, and comprises four principal elements:
• A Nature-Based Recreational Park for the people of Rockingham, Perth and Western Australia, in which to play and picnic with family, friends and peers. It will include active recreational features for cycling, walking, snorkelling, diving, kayaking, boating and playing in adventure playgrounds. • A Tourist-Attracting Coastal Park that will draw state, national and international tourists in much the same way as King's Park. • A Diverse Conservation Park that offers unique features unseen anywhere else in Western Australia. The Cape Peron Coastal Park includes the protected Little Penguin, three threatened ecological communities (Rottnest Island Pines, Thrombolites, and ten per cent of the world's remaining sedgeland), the ecologically unique Lake Richmond, and the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park. • An Economically Viable Park that will be a low cost alternative to an expensive and destructive inland canal development. The Coastal Park will be self-supporting and will add to the economy of local businesses and the Rockingham community through stimulating local tourism.
The concept plan for Cape Peron includes a range of recreational and cultural facilities, including: youth recreational area, Tuart walkways. Aboriginal Circle, cafe, family recreational area, adventure/nature playground, walk/cycle trails, fitness tracks, snorkel trails, promotion of the current Rockingham Regional Environment Centre, community entertainment area, conservation reserve, walk/cycle links, and a scenic coastal drive. The document contains specific plans for Point Peron, Lake Richmond, and the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park, as well as ideas for funding, management and opportunities for local businesses.
Conclusions
Historical material provides strong evidence of the continuous use of Cape Peron by local people and visitors for recreational and social purposes from the late nineteenth century until modem times. Additionally, there is evidence of recognition by Commonwealth, state and local government authorities that traditionally Cape Peron is associated with recreational, social and holiday activities.
The proposed inland marina with canals and private residential housing conflicts with the historical identification of Cape Peron as a place of public recreation with low-key family and community orientated accommodation which exerts minimal impact on the area's unique environment. Most importantly, the inland marina proposal and the proposed amendments to the MRS are inconsistent with the intentions previously documented by state and federal governments, particularly the 1964 agreement for the transfer of land at Point Peron (including the land subject to the MRS) from the Commonwealth to the State of Western Australia, which was conditional on the area's use being restricted to 'a reserve for Recreation and/or Park Lands'.
It is submitted that the proposed amendment to the MRS is at odds with the historical use, vision and plan for the land and should be rejected; the government should instead give serious consideration to the community's proposal for the establishment of a Cape Peron Coastal Park, which reflects the spirit of Cape Peron's long-standing environmental, cultural and social traditions.
Supporting information was provided with this submission.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 99
Submitted by: Krystyna Haq (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal does not accord with 1964 agreement that the State use the land for recreational/conservation purposes to be used by future generations. • The site has historical connections as it was used for educational purposes. • The site is used for a range of recreation uses and has health benefits. • There are substantial environmental risks associated with the proposal and the financial costs are high. • The site should be retained as a conservation area to be used by future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 100
Submitted by: Toni Liddell (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should remain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 101
Submitted by: David Mills (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• Bush Forever site should be preserved for future generations and not developed for a few persons. • The record of canals in other places is not good and will just create future problems. • The proposal will impact on Lake Richmond and who will be paying to dredge the canals. • The site has holistic links for many people and should remain for future generations.
Planning Comment: Comment noted. The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 102
Submitted by: Jody Rigby (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The proposed development should not be approved and that independent studies be undertaken into the proposals. • It should be noted that other marinas elsewhere have created a range of problems, including a financial burden. • The proposal will impact on the environment, such as the Little Penguin.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 103
Submitted by: Maureen & Robert Skeet (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with a 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservations uses. • The land should be preserved because of the unique land and marine ecosystems, such as the Thrombolites. • Not against a marina but the location is not supported. The Wanliss Street proposal is the better alternative. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 105
Submitted by: Liddell Williams (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The loss of use of the Point Peron area for recreation is of concern. • The loss of affordable accommodation is unfair, where will RSL go. • Potentially take 20 years until the entire development has been completed, this will cause a lot of disruption. • The cost of the marina and canals should not be subsidised by taxpayers. • The Little Penguins will be disrupted by the proposed development
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 106
Submitted by: George William Burns (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Historical Background
The 1964 Point Peron Land Agreement
The 1964 Point Peron Land Agreement was signed by the then WA Premier Sir David Brand and Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies, stipulated that the use of Point Peron land transferred at that time by the Commonwealth to the State (which included the land subject to the proposed MRS amendment) is to be 'restricted to a reserve for recreation and/or park lands.' In 1968 the Commonwealth confirmed in writing that the land must not be used 'for private industrial, commercial or residential development'.
In 2011 the Federal Minister for Finance, Senator Wong, stated "The Commonwealth has not released or excused the State from maintaining the land for recreation and park lands, and that the Commonwealth expects the State to honour its undertakings made in 1964 and 1968.."
The intention of this agreement between the Federal Government and State Government was clear. The promise of the land to the people of Western Australia needs to be respected and upheld.
Bush Forever
Point Peron is a designated Bush Forever site 355. The State Government's Bush Forever plan is a world class plan in Australia's only global biodiversity hotspot. It also provides for regionally and locally significant ecological linkages connecting these regionally significant natural areas together with locally significant natural areas. These linkages are essential in our fragmented landscape, and without them biodiversity, community bonds as well as health and well-being will decline markedly.
"Bush Forever is about protecting the quality of our environment" so that "our children and future generations will be able to appreciate and enjoy our natural heritage places." The Government has designated this as a Bush Forever site is a promise to, and expectation for, the people of WA that it will remain Bush Forever and not be rezoned.
Planning Forethought
The preservation of King's Park is a comparable example of planning forethought. Preserving this unique environmental area has made it the number one tourist destination in Western Australia, drawing many millions of dollars into the economy each year.
WA Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Albert Jacob, has recently given testimony to this forethought of planning by stating "Kings Park is a place of inspiration, relaxation, recreation and wonder; something we proudly share with interstate and overseas visitors."
Cape Peron Potential
Cape Peron is in the same position as King's Park was with the encroachment of West Perth and Subiaco. To allow this encroachment by urban rezoning would equate to the loss of King's Park back in 1872. The potential of Cape Peron for the health and wellbeing of Western Australians as well as for tourism and the Western Australian economy is obvious and requires the application of common sense and forethought by the WAPC.
A Matter of Honour
Two of the country's most prominent political leaders (Sir Robert Menzies and Sir David Brand) promised that Cape Peron would be 'restricted to a reserve for recreational and/or park lands', does the public not have a right to expect this agreement will be honoured?
The former Federal Minister advised that the Commonwealth has not released or excused the State from maintaining the land for recreation and park lands, does the public not have a right to believe their park will continue to remain a park for them and future generations? If the State promised and designated part of Cape Peron as Bush Forever site 355, the site should be preserved as promised.
The Community Vision
The community has a vision for the Cape Peron Coastal Park in keeping with the original plan on the part of the State and Commonwealth governments. The vision is for the following:
• A nature-based recreational park for the people of Rockingham, Perth, and Western Australia in which to play and picnic with family, friends and peers. It will include active recreational features for cycling, walking, snorkelling, diving, kayaking, boating, skateboarding etc. It will include passive recreational features for picnicking, sitting in botanic gardens, enjoying a coffee, watching an outdoor movie, listening to a concert, relaxing on a beach and quietly appreciating both nature and seascapes. The coastal park would also provide a variety of services and facilities to all people. • A tourist-attracting coastal park that will draw state, national and international tourists. Tourists list unspoiled nature as one of the top attractions to visit. The Cape Peron region holds much for the visitor. With the planned recreational areas, botanical walkways, threatened ecological communities, outdoor concerts and movies and the nearby Rockingham Beach foreshore precinct with a high level of restaurants, cafes and accommodation. • A diverse conservation park that offers features unseen along the Western Australian coast. The Cape Peron Coastal Park will include the Little Penguin, three TEC (Rottnest Island Pines, Thrombolites that have survived for 600 million years, and 10% of the world's remaining sedgelands), a rare stand of Tuart trees, the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park (set aside for wildlife conservation) and the ecologically unique Lake Richmond. Lake Richmond alone is the closest fresh water lake to the ocean anywhere in Australia and home to the long-necked turtle as well as 109 species of visiting birds including 15 protected under international agreements. The extremely rare Thromobolite community also exists. • An economically viable and sustainable park that is a low cost, low risk alternative. The Coastal Park will be self-supporting through the attraction of locals and visiting tourists, add to the economy of local businesses and the Rockingham community. Currently most tourists only visit the Rockingham area for a few hours, primarily going to Penguin Island. The Cape Peron Coastal Park would encourage people to linger longer in the area. Background Factors for a Coastal Park
Cape Peron is unique and should be preserved in and of its own right. While it can be economically viable and is essential to individual and community health and well-being, conservation of unique natural features should not rely primarily on a business case in order to proceed.
Claiming what would essentially be an artificial canal precinct will be a tourist drawcard is misguided and fails to take account of modern tourism trends. It would simply be just one more of the same, competing with Hillarys, Elizabeth Quay etc. Nature parks, conversely, remain as a constant attraction, ever increasing in popularity as the built environment expands.
In conjunction with the Cape Peron Coastal Park, we support the approved Wanliss Street marina. This would be a far better site for boats as it located in deep water rather than the proposed Mangles Bay Marina which is located inland and accessible only through very shallow water, be far cheaper to construct, be achievable within a much shorter timeframe than the proposed Mangles Bay Marina, address the need the Mangles Bay Marina purports to address but without the environmental destruction and disruption, enhance and integrate with the existing commercial development at Rockingham Beach and help preserve a coastal park for all.
The Rockingham population is projected to increase by 61.9% in the next 20 years. More people need more parks for their health and well-being not less. The Cape Peron Coastal Park meets the City of Rockingham's Strategic Community Plan 2015 - 2025 goal of a sustainable environment in which "coastal and bushland reserves are well used and sustainably managed preserving them for future generations to enjoy."
The Cape Peron Coastal Plan is consistent with Directions 2031 and beyond and beyond that supports "a green network of parks, conservation and biodiversity areas" and "the development of local identity and sense of place" and to "Provide quality passive and active public open space".
Directions 2031 and beyond encourages local government to institute public open space strategies for a range of reasons.
Rezoning for the Mangles Bay Marina project would be aimed at short-term financial gain and compromise the future opportunities integral to the Cape Peron Coastal Plan - and hence contrary to the State Planning Strategy 2050 principles.
The State Planning Strategy 2050, on the topic of Tourism, states, "Western Australia's environment and landscape character create a unique and attractive holiday destination and ecotourism is one of the State's key tourism markets.
Ecotourism attractions are popular with locals and visitors alike and include the coastline and waterways - as well as a range of nature-based activities such as swimming, diving, kayaking, kite surfing, bushwalking, close-up interaction with Little Penguins, sea-lions and birdlife."
For the sake of preserving this unique part of the WA coastline, people's physical and mental health, and the ecotourism benefits to WA's economy, it is imperative that Cape Peron be preserved in its entirety and developed into a world class protected coastal park.
Cape Peron Coastal Park Plans for the Central Cape Area
As the land affected by the proposed MRS amendment is part of an interconnected biodiversity area the Cape Peron Coastal Park plans incorporate the whole interconnected area that includes the central cape area (where the development is proposed), the western Point Peron area, Lake Richmond and the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park.
Our plan for the central cape area is to include King's Park-like features that utilise existing areas, facilities, natural resources and degraded areas as much as possible to preserve the integrity of the park. The plan includes a range of facilities.
The Cape Peron Coastal Park plans for the western Point Peron area, Cape Peron coastal park plans for Lake Richmond, Cape Peron coastal park plans for the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park also include a range of facilities.
Flaws in the Proponents' Argument
The proponents claim that they can provide a high quality Cape Peron Park at the same time as the Mangles Bay Marina. Taking a significant area of the land from Cape Peron for housing and canals would destroy the opportunity for a world class park integrating Cape Peron with Lake Richmond. It would mean there will not physically be the space left for all the features that the Cape Peron Coastal Plan. The beach will be carved apart by rock walls, groynes and a channel, and people would have to access the foreshore through a private housing estate. In addition, the removal of Point Peron Road in the Mangles Bay Marina plan will mean the removal of the tourist-attracting scenic coastal drive.
There are a number of advantages of the Cape Peron Coastal Park Plan, such as prevention of all the issues associated with the Mangles Bay Marina, environmental sustainability, wildlife sustainability and economic and social sustainability.
The Failure to Conduct a Comparative Analysis
In putting forward one proposal the government has failed to:
• Acknowledge and respect both the original agreement and intention for Cape Peron; • Acknowledge and respect the wishes of the majority; • Adequately assess the Cape Peron Coastal Plan proposal for the Land; and • Conduct a comparative analysis of the two options (Mangles Bay Marina and Cape Peron Coastal Plan) prior to the proposed MRS amendment being advertised.
The submission included a copy of the Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 107
Submitted by: Dr Keren Geddes (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as there are concerns with the proposed changes at Cape Peron. With growing population numbers in the Rockingham/Kwinana area, reduced sizes of residential lots where kids have reduced contact with nature, and increasing issues of mental health and substance abuse, children need more access to nature rather than less. There is clear evidence that contact with nature enhances health and wellbeing. Reference was made to Professor George Burns.
The State Planning Strategy 2050 that says "Nature and access to natural environments can reduce the impact of life stress on children and help them deal with adversity. The greater their exposure to nature, the greater the benefits."
We know that trauma effects brain development with a particularly potent impact on the young. We also know these effects can be carried throughout life and underlie much of the mental health and drug related conditions and crimes. Brain imaging tools have started to show what happens in traumatized people. In order to repair itself the brain needs to attend to positive and calming sensory input.
That terror is held within the body. The release of terror experiences, is therefore, facilitated by accessing nonverbal means of sensory input. What could be more important than this when thinking of the lives and futures of these vulnerable young people?
The submission states they are passionate about impacts on children and works with the youth of Rockingham. Cape Peron is used as follows:
• Development of a nature guided group therapy programme with the Education Department at the Point Peron camp facility. • A sensory awareness programme for individual children and adolescents presenting with acute symptoms of complex trauma. • Parent group working with anxious parents who struggle to manage their children due to their own emotional distress and trauma related experiences. • Staff development specifically addressing the well documented issue of compassion fatigue by conducting mindfulness based exercises in nature.
The loss of Cape Peron a large section of the beachfront and potential risk to the three TEC’s will be a significant detrimental loss of therapeutic benefits to young people but also in the prevention of mental health problems for all young people.
The Cape Peron Coastal Park proposal will enhance the health and wellbeing of our children, youth, families and community. The Cape Peron Coastal Park proposal is essential if we are to maximise mental health and wellbeing, prevent mental illness, and treat mental health issues in the child and adolescent populations of our community.
The WAPC should reject the proposed MRS amendment and declare Cape Peron as an “A” class reserve for current and future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 108
Submitted by: Melanie Taylor (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site is used for recreation purposes and shouldn't be developed for a marina. The beach will be destroyed, and seagrass/ecosystem impacts will occur. Rates and taxes will also be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 109
Submitted by: Leonard John Warren (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The name of the proposal does not represent that it is a housing estate at Cape Peron. • The proposal seeks to remove Bush Forever and strengthens the distrust of Politicians. • The proposal is aimed for the rich, and disenfranchises the general community. • The proposal destroys the peaceful bushland setting and it health benefits. • The site disregards long term financial and environmental costs.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 110
Submitted by: Valerie Warren (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The land is Bush Forever and is essential for the health and wellbeing of people and the general community. • As population increases such areas become more important including for future generations. • The Little Penguin, sea lion and other animals attract a large number of tourists and rely on the marina environment. • All canals developments are environmentally and financially disastrous and are banned elsewhere. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 111
Submitted by: Gareth Buckland (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment and notes the consequences of canals in Busselton. The site should be kept for all persons to enjoy. The site has many native species, including Thrombolites which should not be destroyed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 112
Submitted by: Isobel Clare Cooper (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the amendment, as follows:
• There will be significant traffic flow problems and greater accidents from the proposed development. • Rates and charges are likely to increase because of the proposed development. • There will be a restriction on recreation uses for the site. • In nearby areas reticulation mains will be impacted by the proposed development. • Cars and wildlife will not be compatible and wildlife deaths will occur. Speeding cars will affect residences. • Sulphur smells occur from the Kwinana refinery. There will be smells from rotting seaweed. • The Point Peron area receives extreme winter storms, and having boats moored there will not prevent damage and insurance claims. • Digging a marina in the area is not suitable and will be expensive to fix. • The majority of people do not support the marina. • There will be future security risks to Garden Island.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 113
Submitted by: Mary Davies (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The Mangles Bay area is a fragile ecosystem which will be adversely impacted by building a marina. • Reference has been made to the Point Peron camp facilities being demolished as they were situated on fragile land, as stated by the previous Minister for Sport and Recreation Norman Moore.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 114
Submitted by: Michele Dreyfus (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment as the site is a valued environmental asset which should be protected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 115
Submitted by: Malcolm Roy Hughes (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The area the subject of the amendment is located on land which was provided to the State of WA for recreation/conservation purposes. • The proposed amendment will be in contravention of the 1964 agreement. • The proposed development will cost in excess of $250,000, has a public tender been advertised so all development companies can take part? • Is the marina going to be built on Parks and Recreation reservation, and will other reservations similarly be under attack?
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 116
Submitted by: Gerard MacGill (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is opposed as follows:
• The land was given to the State for recreation/conservation purposes. • 42 ha of Bush Forever will be lost. • The urbanisation of Perth requires that existing recreational areas be protected, not sacrificed for a minority of boat owners. • Canal developments are known for their negative impacts and ongoing costly maintenance costs for taxpayers.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 117
Submitted by: Deidre Stanton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has recreational and historical connection for many people. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere and are a disaster. • The site has environmental values which should be protected. • The amenity of the site should be protected for existing and future generations. • Support some improved amenity, such as paths, toilets, cafes etc.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 118
Submitted by: Peter Green (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
History of Land Affected
In 1964, the State Premier of Western Australia and the Prime Minister of Australia agreed that the land in question was to be reserved for parks and recreation and not to be used for industrial, commercial or residential development.
However, in 1968 part of this land was excised to develop what is today the Cape Peron Waste Water Treatment Plant. In 2002, the Federal Finance Department declared that the Commonwealth no longer had any interest in the Cape Peron land. Therefore, the Commonwealth no longer had any jurisdictions on continued Cape Peron involvement which made the 1964 agreement and void.
In 2011 the former Federal Minister for Finance Senator Wong, said in a letter: "the Commonwealth has not released or excused the State from maintaining the land for recreation and park lands, and that the Commonwealth expects the State to honour its undertakings made in 1964 and 1968. The State has an ongoing public duty to honour those undertakings."
It could be argued that the letters between the Premier and Prime Minister and the zoning of parks and recreation was the “general intent," or the "spirit of agreement in 1964." The words of "general intent" are used a number of times in the MRS amendment, so if the words "general intent" are suitable at this point in time, the words used in original letters should be deemed to be the "general intent" at that time. Therefore, the zoning of the land should reflect the original intention for an 'A' class reserve.
Lack of Information
The public has been asked to comment when all relevant material is not available. If the submission timeframe closes, and all relevant documents are not available, the WAPC should commence a new process. The Local Structure Plan is not proposed to be released for comment until late 2015. Anticipate that a detailed staged development plan will assist in making more informed comments on the amendment.
It is also noted that a detailed traffic assessment and marina management plan will be made available to the WAPC prior to the amendment being considered for final determination. The public should be asked to comment on this.
Facts And Evidence In Relation To Mangles Bay Marina project
At the WA Parliamentary Estimates Committee meeting the CEO LandCorp stated: The Marina construction would be delayed 2-3 years because of the water monitoring that needed to be done, and that land clearing and sale of blocks would begin in first stage". If the monitoring of the site shows that the marina should not commence, this project is likely to a housing development.
The submitter has been informed that it will take 10-15-20 years maybe never to develop. The first stage clear vegetation and sell housing blocks to generate funds.
Cedar Woods have committed to lodge a bank cheque to cover the cost of construction of the marina, so there is no requirement to clear the land and sell off housing blocks, to generate funds for construction of marina. Therefore, it would be preferable to complete the water monitoring and determine the feasibility of the project before disturbing any vegetation. Cedar Woods advises that their first stage of development includes the Memorial Drive upgrade to dual carriageway, and wastewater pipelines - the joint proponents are at odds as to what is planned.
The City of Rockingham wrote to Cedar Woods in June 2015, with concerns over the Local Structure Plan, and have since notified Cedar Woods that the City will not involve itself with the plan until Cedar Woods respond to their concerns listed in the correspondence. There are many people who have never written a submission to the WAPC and other government departments, and find the process confusing, but are very interested with the development.
MRS amendment
The 500 m buffer of the Point Peron Waste Water Treatment Plant extends into the proposed development. It is premature to assess whether there is a potential health risk, therefore no changes to amendment should be undertaken until all information is available.
Community Consultation
The community view has substantially changed from just a few years ago, as evidenced in the recent Local Election for City of Rockingham Councillors, as 15 or the 22 Candidates were against the project.
Scope and Content
The amendment recognises foremost the construction of a marina, and until it is determined that it is safe to construct, there should be no changes to zoning, as this could lead to irreversible devastation of vegetation and the clearing of land.
The rehabilitation of 20 ha of Cape Peron and acquiring 56 ha of land on the Swan Coastal Plain is short change to losing 105.34 ha of land of which 46.69 ha is a Bush Forever site, along with parks and recreation areas. Strategic Context
(i) Directions 2031 and beyond
"and supported by a green network of parks, conservation and biodiversity areas, and, support the development of local identity and sense of place.” Both will be lost if Mangles Bay Marina project goes ahead.
"Provide quality passive and active public open space." "Directions 2031 and beyond and beyond encourages local government to institute public open space strategies in order to:
• strategically guide the development of a system of diverse and well-distributed public open spaces; • ensure adequate provision of regional and district active recreation sites; • incorporate protection of the natural environment and water management concepts into the development of public open space; and • encourage walking, cycling and sports as port of the overall community health picture."
Whilst the Directions 2031 and beyond document encourages such things, the Mangles Bay Marina project cancels what the public already has to enjoy.
"Promote and support tourism opportunities. Directions 2031 and beyond and beyond has identified a number of metropolitan attractors that are not recognised in the activity centres hierarchy yet are places that attract visitors and warrant consideration in sub-regional strategies and structure plans. Metropolitan attractors should be included in any analysis of activity centres within the subregions due to the influence they have over the use of the movement and green networks and the impact of tourism on the local economy."
The Mangles Bay Marina project proposes private residential and commercial facilities along with canals. This will impede the movement of residents of Rockingham and tourists alike into an area that, if implemented, severely reduce a linkage to other tourist attractions in the area to make a green tourist experience, as represented by the Cape Peron Coastal Park.
"Ongoing implementation of Bush Forever, a whole-of-government initiative designed to identify, protect and manage regionally significant bushland on the Swan Coastal Plain." The Mangles Bay Marina project removes site 355 permanently.
"Protect matters of national environmental significance, that is migratory species protected under international agreements.” There is no recognition of critically endangered migratory species in the Mangles Bay Marina Environmental Process.
"Protect our coastline by balancing development with the protection, conservation and enhancement of coastal values and the anticipated impacts of climate change, particularly sea level rise.”
The proponents of the Mangles Bay Marina project have proposed a 20 metre setback solely due to the term 'nodal’, whereas the WAPC SPP 2.6 identifies 162 metres. It clearly shows the intent of developers to flaunt policy guidelines in pursuit of the monetary dollar.
"Coastal vulnerability and sea level rise. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and Department of Transport are jointly undertaking a project to assess coastal vulnerability and prepare for possible sea level rise along the WA coast."
The Mangles Bay Marina project proponent has already determined that there are no areas of concern along the Mangles Bay coastline. However, they should note the very destructive storm surge events over the past few years.
“Improve air quality." With the planned marina with 500 boats, 450 residential houses (with vehicles), hotel, short stay accommodation, (all with vehicles), plus the upgraded facilities and manpower at the Garden Island Naval Base HMAS Stirling, (all with vehicles), air quality in the area will decrease. The alternative to the Mangles Bay Marina project, that is, the Cape Peron Coastal Park will preserve air quality, health and well-being.
(ii) State Planning Strategy 2050
“Conserve the State's natural assets through sustainable development. The intrinsic value of the State's environmental assets and their potential for future economic opportunities needs to be recognised through conservation and management. This includes conserving areas of native vegetation and the biodiversity of species populations and ecological communities.
A careful and managed balance of conservation and development will ensure the State can sustain its growth and prosperity over the long term. It is imperative therefore that the State's biodiversity and natural resources are well-managed so that short-term gains do not compromise future opportunities."
The Mangles Bay Marina project does not enhance these principles. The Cape Peron Coastal Park concept plan does enhance these principles.
"Western Australia's environment and landscape character create a unique and attractive holiday destination and ecotourism is one of the State's key tourism markets.
Ecotourism attractions are popular with locals and visitors alike and include the coastline and waterways as well as a range of nature-based activities such as swimming, diving, kayaking, kite surfing, bushwalking, close-up interaction with Little Penguins, sea-lions and birdlife."
"The conservation of significant and iconic landscapes and eco-tourism assets will be essential to sustaining and enhancing tourism. Planning for climate change adaptation is important to the sustainability of many key tourism sites. An increase in tourism infrastructure to exploit the State's unique opportunities is important for the future diversification of the economy, especially regionally."
The development of the Mangles Bay Marina project with its exclusive housing enclave, inhibits the possibilities that a Cape Peron Coastal Park vision could accommodate when supporting the Tourism Industry, a little bit of vision by state, local government, regional development and community members could achieve substantial benefits for the region, and state overall.
"If an additional 40% of the Australian population engaged in regular, moderate and effective exercise, an estimated net benefit of $6.5 million per day would result from the reduced costs associated with heart disease, back pain, increased workplace productivity and reduced absenteeism. People who use public open spaces are three times more likely to achieve recommended levels of physical activity than those who do not use the spaces.
Walking an extra hour a week represents 40% of the average person's physical activity target and it halves the risk of being overweight." All benefits a coastal park would help to achieve.
"The natural environment provides clean water, clean air and places for outdoor recreation. Retaining natural bushland and coastal areas that are accessible is essential to human health and a sense of wellbeing.
People are often attracted to spaces and places with iconic landscapes, unique histories, exciting activities or which provide an overall calming influence. These spaces and places offer people inspiration, stress relief, aesthetic values and a sense of spirituality and belonging."
Key facts, "Australia is one of the most overweight nations in the world. In Western Australia, 66% of adults and 22% of children are classed as overweight or obese. In 2008, obesity (including overweight) was estimated to cost Australia $58.2 billion and in Western Australia $5.85 billion. It is estimated that over 16,000 Australians die prematurely each year as a result of inactivity, with nearly 2,000 of those in Western Australia.
Nature and access to natural environments can reduce the impact of life-stress on children and help them deal with adversity. The greater their exposure to nature, the greater the benefits." Which development complements these statements, loss of bush forever site, inland marina, housing estate, hotel, cafes etc, or a coastal park with dedicated walk/cycle trails etc?
"It is important that the natural environment is appreciated both for its contributions to ecosystem services and for its intrinsic values. The conservation of nature and areas of wilderness, as well as its use for outdoor recreation and ecotourism, is of great value."
(iii) Draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework
Directions 2031 and beyond, State Planning Strategy 2050 and Perth and [email protected] Million all complement each other but are contradicted by the Mangles Bay Marina project. As mentioned previously all required information is available, just requires state, local government and community to work together to bring the Cape Peron Coastal Park to fruition.
In relation to the Perth Recreational Boating Facility Study - Technical Report 44 states the need to develop a marina at Mangles Bay. However, the Estimates Committee document states "There is no Government appropriation to this project." Is the WAPC or LandCorp correct?
The site is not in Mangles Bay, but an inland marina on Bush Forever, and parks and recreation land. In relation to State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy the amendment does not refer to a 90 metre exclusion zone. No rezoning should occur without a foreshore management plan being undertaken.
The Mangles Bay Marina project is an inland marina, not in a 'coastal foreshore reserve.' Within the development area is a planned 450 residential housing. The total setback would therefore be considerably more than the 20 metre setback proposed by Cedar Woods. The City of Rockingham has stated that the setback should be 162 metres.
There is no mention of where the proposed buried seawall is to be located etc. As this significant engineering facility affects coastal setback in accordance with SPP 2.6, no rezoning of land should take place this is designed and included in Local Structure Plan. With regard to the breakwater, a 500 metre x 80 metre area will incur a loss of 500 metres of beach that is currently for public use.
Statutory Context
(i) Environment
The EPA states "Water quality within the inland marina waterbody is not proposed to be governed by the State Environment Policy (Cockburn Sound), but by Development Control Policy 1.8 - Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments.
In relation to “Monitoring, aesthetics and amenity of artificial waterways." There is no mention of water circulation and states "The canal design must have the following basic principles:
Consideration will only be given to designs with good circulation, and which maximise tidal flushing, mixing by wind action and vertical mixing (eg, ideally flushing within three days)."
The flushing of water in inland marinas is a critical element of water quality, why has the EPA failed to mention the section in DC 1.8 as noted above?
The EPA mention that "Flushing of waters was predicted to be up to 13 days for areas at end of canals," the modelling was performed by Asia Pacific, and was peer reviewed by Dr Jason Antenucci who concluded that in general, the model selection, configuration and validation is suitable for the purpose of predicting the flushing characteristics of Mangles Bay Marina." In effect saying the model Asia Pacific used was suitable, not that flushing times were acceptable.
However, the EPA failed to report that "it would seem to be that flushing times in excess of 10 days could potentially be an issue. Whilst it may have been outside the APASA (Asia Pacific) scope, this potential should nonetheless be recognised in the context of the development."
It is questioned why the EPA has only included Dr Antennucci's comment validating Asia Pacific modelling, but failed to include his comment on flushing times. Also question why the EPA failed to make comment on DC 1.8 section 7.11.
The proponent recognises that flushing times are an issue, as they intend to pump sea water into the canals. The predicted changes in marina flushing times with pumping at 5000 m3/day per pump, for original flushing time of 10 days, one pump reduced time to 8.4 days, using three pumps reduced the time to 6.4 days, still over twice the ideal times as indicated in DC 1.8 section 7.11. The consultant report concludes by saying, 'Artificial flushing is considered the only contingency option available.'
"...the waterway should not rely on mechanical means such as pumping to maintain water quality." What is the WAPC's view of the consultants and EPA's lack of attention to Department policies?
(ii) Water Quality
Mangles Bay Marina project ERA Report 1471, page 17, notes that "flushing times for the marina waterbody would be between 4 and 13 days," in excess to WAPC DCP 1.8 section 7.11 guidelines which state that flushing should "ideally be within 3 days."
Mangles Bay Marina project ERA Report 1471, Page 18, states, "In summary, this proposal will most likely result in higher levels of phytoplankton production in the marina waterbody than in Mangles Bay. This is supported by the proponents overall finding that chlorophyll concentrations in the marina are typically about twice those of adjacent waters in Mangles Bay. This would in turn result in some nutrients and additional phytoplankton loads to Mangles Bay by the outflow of marina waters."
Department of Fisheries Fish Kill Report, page 7, states that: "Previous reports examining this flushing' activity estimate that it can take up to 25 days for water in the Mangles Bay area to replenish or exchange with the surrounding oceanic waters." Department of Fisheries Fish Kill Report, page 11, mentions that "Contributing factors to algal blooms include nutrients, elevated water temperatures and reduced flushing."
Concern 1: As can be seen from the above, 'water quality' in the canals/marina and ultimately into Mangles Bay is a problem, due to poor flushing, and build-up of chlorophyll a (twice as in adjacent waters in Mangles Bay), plus the added production of photoplankton.
The Cockburn Sound Management Council's Report Card 2014; page 12; states in part "the correlation with an observed increase in chlorophyll-a at site WS4 in Warnbro Sound over the same period cannot be ignored and may be an indication that nutrient enrichment due to urban development around Warnbro Sound has begun to put pressure on the marine environment here."
Concern 2: With the proposed 565 housing blocks along with other facilities located around the development's canals and marina, there is the detrimental effect of fertiliser use on ground water quality. The nutrients from domestic gardens, commercial facilities and public spaces will eventually leach into the canals/marina, thus aggravating an already perceived potential risk to the 'water quality' of, not only, Mangles Bay but also beyond into the greater Cockburn Sound area as recently witnessed at the end of 2015.
An offset of $250,000 has been earmarked to the Cockburn Sound Management Council 'for the coordination of nutrient reduction strategies within the catchment of Mangles Bay.' However, as a member of the Council, what those strategies might be is anyone's guess, and in fact if they would work, households receiving leaflets requesting less watering, would not solve the problem, neither would monitoring as that is already a focus of Cockburn Sound Management Council.
The submitter requests their concerns be taken into serious consideration and actioned in future deliberations and decisions when assessing the viability of the Mangles Bay Marina project.
In another area of the report the EPA make comment regarding a Cape Peron Fauna Assessment that was carried out by ENV, the survey stated that 66 bird species were identified. Actual visitation of birds is 109 species of which there are 15 migratory birds listed under the International Agreements, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA, one of which is critically endangered.
(iii) Costings
With the monetary offsets outlined in the Report, $450,000 to DPaW, $250,000 plus $25,000 for five years to Cockburn Sound Management Council, a total of $825,000 plus the $3.7 million to Cedar Woods, is it not the case that the EPA and other Government Departments are focussed on supporting this project.
(vi) Infrastructure, Water and Wastewater
The Water Corporation raises no objection to changing of zoning, as it is being paid by the developer 460 mm water main to Garden Island and associated reticulation services, 450 mm Seabrook Avenue wastewater pressure main, 1400 mm Sepia Depression Ocean Outfall Landline (SDOOL), the Rockingham Main Drain, and relocation of reserve protecting infrastructure traversing subject land.
The relocation of the above brings substantial viability questions into consideration when the estimated relocation of the 1400 mm SDOOL is estimated to be $40 million.
(v) Regional Road Matters
A detailed traffic assessment is to be undertaken by the proponent prior to consideration by the WAPC. This report has been requested by the submitter. The impact of this development and the proposed expansion of HMAS Stirling, will put pressure on Safety Bay Road, Parkin Street and Lake Street.
Even with upgrading of Memorial Drive to a four lane regional road, and the potential use of the Richmond Avenue Road Reserve, which will need to satisfy environmental concerns around Lake Richmond. Without seeing an economic study of the project with all the infrastructure costings, no rezoning should take place.
(vi) Marina Management Arrangements
I refer to City of Rockingham states "The City invited Cedar Woods Properties Limited to commence the process towards preparing the deed of agreement. No response has been received to this request."
"The apparent lack of progress on these issues is concerning and undermines the City's confidence in the project. As a result, I have instructed Planning Services to cease its preliminary consideration of the proposed Town Planning Scheme amendment and Local Structure Plan until there is resolution to the above matters."
In lieu of the above statements from City of Rockingham, can the public have confidence that the proponent will comply with the conditions in Ministerial Statement 974.
(vii) Sustainability
It has been frustrating to receive a negative response from Ministers when offering a detailed presentation of the Cape Peron Coastal Park, which clearly shows the social, environmental and economic benefits. The Mangles Bay Marina project cannot be evaluated against the Cape Peron Coastal Plan as no details of financial information are available.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 119
Submitted by: Valma Bowater (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Precious bushland is being removed at the expense of development. • Kings Park is a good example of where such a site has a special meaning for all. • The site could become a coastal park to be used by all persons. • A similar marina in Mandurah is not supported. • The site has special environmental values which should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 120
Submitted by: John Bunting (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There is a risk of salt water affecting groundwater which will impact Lake Richmond and other animals. Cape Peron and Lake Richmond are environment islands. • Cape Peron is of worldwide interest for geologists and provides an important educational function. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan is supported.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 121
Submitted by: PC Den Breejer (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• No housing development or marina should occur at Point Peron. • Support a coastal recreational park for the endangered trees, birds and wildlife. • The site has tourism value and should be used for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 122
Submitted by: Barrie Dimond (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The marina is an environmental risk to proceed. • Ministerial Statement 974 has comprehensive conditions. There is a requirement for a management plan, this doesn't seem to have been done. There is no guarantee that this management plan will be done. • The proposal has the potential to impact on groundwater and Lake Richmond and threatened seagrasses in Mangles Bay. • The construction disruption will be years for residents. • The Urban zoning means that if the marina doesn't happen, then the land could be used for residential purposes. • Large environmental areas are valuable and should not be removed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 123
Submitted by: Dominique Griffiths (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The Bush Forever areas were for all persons to use, not to be redeveloped for profit and then issues passed onto ratepayers. All vacant land doesn't have to be redeveloped. The site can be upgraded with picnic and recreation users. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental, recreational etc reasons. • Day trippers go to Rockingham which is congested and this area provides a less congested area. • The Council is making enough money from rates, without the need to develop this land, which may never be completely finished.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 124
Submitted by: Joanne Fitzgerald & Brian Renfrey (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The 20 year timeframe for construction activities will have a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of people. • The financial impact of the proposal will be great, and the site should be retained as a coastal park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 125
Submitted by: Deborah Jane Kelly (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
The 1964 Point Peron Land Agreement
The area to be rezoned to Urban is in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. The 1964 land agreement was signed by Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies and Premier David Brand. The agreement stipulated that this land is gifted to the people of Western Australia and is to be restricted to a reserve for recreation and/or parklands and must not be used for private industrial, commercial or residential development. The proposal to rezone land to Urban and take recreation from our community is not supported.
Draft Perth and [email protected] Million South Metropolitan Peel Sub-regional Planning Framework
The Chairman's comments state that "Protection of environmental values is primary considerations" and "to support and protect areas which have significant regional environmental value". This amendment would be inconsistent with this document.
Lake Richmond
This Mangles Bay Marina will put at risk Lake Richmond which is a significant wetland, with ancient Thrombolites, rare sedge lands and migratory birds protected under international agreement. The pelicans are reliant on Lake Richmond for the fresh water to feed their chicks.
The proposed Urban zone will impact on this delicate and fragile lake. Seawater from artificial canals would be within meters of this lake. Scientists and engineering professionals are very concerned the hydrology will be affected and create salinisation issues with ground water. Limestone substructures will be eroded away. The Mangles Bay Marina structure plan has not been released to the public, and the overflow from Lake Richmond will be very difficult to execute.
Loss of Bush Forever
"Bush Forever is about protecting the quality of our environment" so that "our children and future generations will be able to appreciate and enjoy our natural heritage places'. Site 355 & 358 areas have not been taken into account in this rezoning of Bush Forever land to Urban. Rare Tuart trees and Rottnest Island pines are at risk and scarce coastal bushland.
Penguins
The Rockingham Little Penguin is threatened with this development given dredging will occur in the middle of penguin feeding ground/foraging areas. This deep channel will also stir up mercury and heavy metals. Sea bird feathers already show high levels of mercury in the area. It is estimated that penguins have reduced by 75% since 2007, with approximately 1,000 left. Propeller strikes are the most common form of death. With the extra boats in the marina, dredging of toxins in Cockburn Sound and removal of seagrass habitat will destroy the Little Penguin.
DC 1.8 – Canal Estates and Artificial Waterways
DC 1.8 states that canals should flush ideally within three days. The proponents Cedar Woods have stated the proposed canal has problems flushing up to 14 days in areas. To counteract this problem the proponent intends to pump in seawater. Section 8.2 of DC 1.8 states the waterway should not rely on mechanical means such as pumping to maintain water quality.
The Mangles Bay water quality is already poor due to the Garden Island causeway, and the canal will not flush. The tides in Mangles Bay are too small to flush this north facing artificial waterway.
The Port Geographe inland marina has cost WA taxpayers over $30 million to rectify erosion of Wonnerup Beach, dredging and seaweed build up being a problem. Canals are banned in other states of Australia because of the adverse economic and environmental impacts.
Flooding
Lake Richmond was previously prone to flooding. If the Mangles Bay Marina proceeds, the drain will be replaced with a pipe under Safety Bay Rd and out to sea. There is a risk of back flooding. Another factor is also rising sea levels which are 0.9 m/year. Many people don't have flood insurance.
Health and Well-Being
Studies of health and wellbeing associated with nature and the quality of parkland show that disease is lower when living near green space. Our rapidly expanding regions in City of Rockingham are growing faster than anywhere in Australia.
Social Value
Green spaces offer opportunities for social interaction, improving social inclusion and connectivity. A coastal park would have picnic grounds, cycle ways, an entertainment precinct etc. which is what a growing city needs.
The Psychological Value of Parks
Mental illness is the leading cause of disability burden in Australia. A substantial body of research evidence shows the value of contact with nature, including through "easily accessible natural environments within urban areas".
The Importance of Parks for Children's Development, Health and WellBeing
Contact with nature is more important for children, and strong evidence suggests children's access to nature is diminishing. There is strong evidence for the nature contact which provides motor development, a sense of identity, autonomy and psychological resilience exploration, problem solving, decision making creative thinking.
Most Beautiful Cities in the World Have a Park
London and Sydney with Hyde Parks, New York has Central Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, San Francisco has Golden Gate Park etc. These parks attract tourism and give their community a place to exercise, connect to each other and distress.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 126
Submitted by: Alexander and Lurhene Murray (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron should not be rezoned and should be a coastal park for all persons and tourism. • This area is used for a variety of recreation uses. • As there is limited access to Point Peron, traffic will increase on local streets. • There will be a lot of impacts from construction activities.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 128
Submitted by: John Jones (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land should remain as bushland and not redeveloped as a marina, as it is the only remaining undeveloped coastal area between Mandurah and Fremantle. The flora and fauna should be protected. • There are enough people and traffic in the locality which will be exacerbated by this development, will ratepayers have to pay. • The land should form part of a coastal reserve to be used by all persons, there is a natural harbour (and associated facilities) which is used by all residents. • Canals will cause a range of problems which will require upkeep. • A range of sites were mentioned as planning mistakes in Rockingham which should not be replicated.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 129
Submitted by: Luke Lamence (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it will impact seagrasses because of the dredging required. The existing animals will be impacted and the ecosystem will be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 130
Submitted by: Berre Howell Lloyd (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal is inconsistent with a 1964 land agreement for the land to be used for recreational/conservation purposes. • The site has historical connections for many people and reserves all over the world have been successfully used for such purposes. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • Canal developments have significant issues and have been banned in NSW and Victoria. Other canal developments have coast a lot of money to maintain in the future. • Wanliss Street is a better alternative for a marina with minimal disturbance of land. • Consideration being given to the future legacy of the site for future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 131, 132, 133
Submitted by: Lynn Lucas, Ronald Lucas, Steve Lucas (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal is inconsistent with 1964 land agreement for the land to be used for recreational/conservation purposes. The site has historical connections for many people. • Bush Forever should not be redeveloped as it belong to all persons and is used for tourism purposes. • Canal developments have raised many concerns elsewhere. There will be impacts on fish stocks, seagrasses and the penguins. • There will be impacts on people health and wellbeing. There will be amenity impacts from the development. • The site should be used as a coastal park for all persons with associated improvements.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 134
Submitted by: Ann Miller (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development will destroy the coastal environment, and with climate change will create a range of issues. • The site is Bush Forever and should not be redeveloped. • The increased boating activities will impact on marina animals. • Seagrass captures carbon and should be protected for fish stocks. • Bird life will decrease, and similar projects elsewhere have had a negative effect on the environment. • The site should be used as a coastal park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 135
Submitted by: Dr Peter & Pat Moss (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is used for recreation purposes and should not be redeveloped. • The site supports unique flora and fauna which should be retained for future generations. • Lake Alexander will become a salinity problem and there will be a change in the water table. • The Mangles Bay beach will be lost, and damage to the seafloor will occur. • Stagnant water is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and associated infectious diseases. • The site was set aside many years ago for recreation/conservation purposes and should not be changed. • The coastal area near Wanliss Street could be a better option.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 136
Submitted by: Samantha Myers (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has a historical connection as it has been used for recreation purposes. • The penguins will probably die if the marina gets developed as there will be no seagrass for them. • The site will be under construction for years which will be affecting the amenity of the locality. • The area should be upgraded and cleaned, but not redeveloped into a marina and be kept for future generations
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 137
Submitted by: Christa Pohlenz (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments have raised many concerns elsewhere. There will be impacts on fish stocks, seagrasses and the penguins. • The proposal will destroy a beach which is used by all, rather than few people using a marina. • There will be ongoing costs associated with maintenance of the site, which will fall on ratepayers. There will be little employment opportunities. • The proposal will not enhance the site for tourism purposes. Nature based tourism will be a better option than a marina development. • Point Peron should be kept for all persons to enjoy. • Canal estates have failed elsewhere and should not be constructed. • The Wanliss Street marina is the better option.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 139
Submitted by: Kaitlyn Brown (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as they stay at Point Peron every Australia Day.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 140
Submitted by: Kerrie Carr (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments have raised many concerns elsewhere and are banned. There will be impacts on fish stocks, seagrasses and the penguins. • There will be ongoing costs associated with maintenance of the site, which will fall on ratepayers. There will be little employment opportunities. • The site will be better for ecotourism purposes. Nature based tourism will be a better option than a marina development. The site has been neglected and is in need of a facelift. • Lake Richmond will be affected and the Thrombolites because of salination etc. • Point Peron should be kept for all persons to enjoy.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 141
Submitted by: Pamela Rosemary Cooper (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Marinas have been a real issue elsewhere and should not be supported. • Tidal flow will be altered causing silting, and algae which will smell. • Nearby Lake Richmond is under pressure and will get worse because of the development. • Traffic flow will be disrupted, and extra rates will be charged because of the marina. • Although there is a need for a marina, it shouldn't be at Mangles Bay, Rockingham residents don't support it. • When issues occur, who will pay for problems to be resolved.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 142
Submitted by: Mullie Dinham (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land was previously regarded as Australian Defense Force property. • The land was gifted to the people of WA, and should be used for parks, cycleways etc to be used and enjoyed by everyone. • The proposal is on a coastal unique locality which should not be approved, as it has the Little Penguin and other sea creatures which will be injured. • Any dredging will cause a range of problems to the Little Penguins and will likely see them extinct. The seagrasses in the locality will not survive or replenished. • The site is inappropriate for a marina as it is a holiday/tourist place for many. • Any approval; subject to conditions will be prone of a range of compliance issues. Supporting materials was attached to this submission.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 143
Submitted by: Steven Griffiths (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used as a recreation area for many people and should be kept for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 144
Submitted by: Mizuki Haddrell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it should remain as a bushland area.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 145, 146
Submitted by: Ellen Hua, Stephanie Hua (Interested residents)
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The submissions state that the site is supported for it coastal features and recreation opportunities, which should remain for future generations. The site is heaven on earth and a popular tourist site.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 147
Submitted by: Lara Korb (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission states that the site is too good to be developed and should be kept for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 148
Submitted by: Elizabeth Law (nearby resident) Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There will be ongoing maintenance issues which need resolution. Canal developments will cost a lot to maintain in future. • The marina will destroy the environment and create shoreline changes. • The proposal will impact on the environment and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 149
Submitted by: David Smith (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• This type of development is banned in many States around Australia. The cost will be a lot to maintain for ratepayers to pay. • The site is Bush Forever and should be retained for future generations. The site has recreation and health and wellbeing values which should be retain for future generations. • If a marina is need, it should be in Wanliss Street as it has no environmental issues. • An alternative for the area is for a coastal park to be created which should be further investigated. • It will take up to 20 years to develop which will impact residents in a number of ways such as noise, dust, dirt etc. • The proposal is too close to Lake Richmond which contains endangered species. • It will destroy seagrasses which are an important nursery for fish. Replanting of seagrasses does not work. • The penguins and dolphins are the tourist businesses in Rockingham. The site should be an ecotourism area.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 150
Submitted by: Denise Ta (Queensland resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should be kept for all to enjoy. The site will attract more tourists and assist the WA economy. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 151
Submitted by: No Name (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should remain bushland.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 152
Submitted by: Phillip Doring (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was provided to the State for recreation/conservation purposes. • The site is used for a range of recreation purposes and is beneficial for health and welling purposes. • Mangles Bay is important for a range of marina ecosystems and has already lost many seagrass meadows. • As seagrasses cannot be transplanted they will affect marine animals. • An alternative is for a marina at Wanliss Street, with no environmental issues. • The site could be developed as a coastal park that can be used for conservation/tourism purposes. • Canals developments are not supported and have been banned in many States. Rates will go up to pay for future maintenance. • It will take 20 of more years to develop which is too long, and will create a range of amenity impacts such as noise and dust etc. • The site is in close proximity the Lake Richmond and the Thrombolities.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 153
Submitted by: Seok Jun Yong (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as the site should remain bushland.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 154
Submitted by: Pauline Clarke (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. This already occurs in nearby areas. • The location of the site is not practical for a marina as when the tide goes out boats rest on the sand. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has tourism values which could be enhanced for future generations. • There are better options for a marina with fewer impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 155
Submitted by: Urban Bushland Council (interest group)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Bush Forever Site Protection
The proposal to develop the Bush Forever site for a marina is not supported. The Point Peron area was set aside for the purpose of conservation and passive recreation.
In the foreword to the Bush Forever documents, the former Minister for the Environment, Cheryl Edwards MLA wrote:
Bush Forever is about protecting the quality of our environment. It is also about consultation, evaluation, negotiation and in some cases compromise, to create opportunities for the shared protection and management of regionally significant bushland by government, individual landowners and the community.
A compromise would be to support the already approved Port Rockingham marina and full protection of Bush Forever Site 355. The site is regionally significant bushland and should remain as such. The marina proposal at Rockingham would not have the unacceptable environmental impacts and risks of the Mangles Bay Marina.
Quindalup Dunes Vegetation and Wetlands
The Quindalup Dune system is fragile. Most of the Quindalup system within the Perth Metropolitan Area is within 500 metres of the coastline. “As a consequence, specific criteria have been identified which should be taken into account in selecting conservation areas in the region along the coast in the metropolitan area which primarily encompasses the Quindalup dunes”.
Given threats, constraints, the geomorphology and vegetation, this became a Bush Forever site for protection so that ‘our children and future generations will be able to appreciate and enjoy our natural heritage places.’ It was also set aside as part of the ‘CAR’ reserve system on the Quindalup dunes, and to protect the coastline dunes which are highly vulnerable to the active processes on the coast.
As stated in the amendment Report, ‘the vegetation within the amendment area ranges from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Good to Degraded’. The proposed amendment area contains Bush Forever site 355 and is part of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park system, and a portion of Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) SCP Type 30a is present. Destruction of these natural and irreplaceable assets in the Regional Park is unacceptable. The proposal to rezone is contrary to the Regional Park planning policy.
Mitigation Equals Net Loss
The Amendment Report notes the conditions set by the State Minister for Environment, a major component being mitigation for the loss of areas of Parks and Recreation Reserve and Bush Forever site 355. However, there will be a net loss of the Quindalup dune ecosystem in an area which was already set aside (and publicly owned) for public appreciation and passive recreation and conservation.
There will be destruction and disturbance of the natural environment. The environmental offsets and mitigation proposed are not supported. The first principle of offset policy – avoidance – should have been invoked. Compounding effect of climate change with increased extreme weather events is significant.
State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy
Much of the Point Peron Bush Forever site and the area proposed for canal development is very low lying (<2m above sea level). SPP 2.6 seeks to avoid coastal inundation from ocean storm surge and climate change.
The rezoning is not consistent with SPP 2.6 as it will allow storm surges to reach inland and close to Lake Richmond. Freshwater Lake Richmond is at risk from saltwater contamination and would have catastrophic consequences for the critically endangered Thrombolites. This precious asset must not be put at risk. Inconsistency with SPP 2.6 (amongst other matters) is reason to not support the proposed amendment.
Tuart Trees
The old Tuart trees adjacent to the proposal are one of the world’s rarest forest trees. These trees should all be retained and protected.
Discussion
“Future areas for urban and industrial development have been determined in conjunction with the State Government’s current Strategic Assessment of the Perth and Peel Regions, in order to avoid and protect areas which have significant regional environmental value. The draft Framework identifies the amendment area as “Urban Expansion”, and this amendment therefore contributes to implementing that document’s recommendations.”
The amendment does not contribute to implementing the draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub- regional Planning Framework recommendations. The draft Framework identifies the amendment area as ‘Urban Expansion’ when the aim of the Framework and of the Strategic Assessment is to “protect areas which have significant regional environmental value”
Planning fails to recognise and protect the intrinsic value of our wonderful and intricately connected natural areas. It must be corrected so that the area is protected and is not rezoned – because it certainly is regionally significant.
Lake Richmond Thrombolites
Critically endangered Lake Richmond contains the only known example of the type of critically microbial community of Thrombolites. Lake Richmond is a relatively deep freshwater lake and is the closest freshwater lake to the ocean in Australia. It is 14 m deep but its surface is only a couple of metres above sea level. It provides habitat for the critically endangered Thrombolites Threatened Ecological Community (TEC).
The Lake Richmond Thrombolites are a ‘living museum’ of the microbial communities which are the origins of life on earth. They date to the pre-Cambrian period 3.5 billion to 600 million years ago. Any risk to such a special natural asset of evolutionary significance is unacceptable.
The proposed canal development adjacent to Lake Richmond will irreversibly change the stratigraphy and groundwater hydrology and will bring saline seawater close the edge of the freshwater of Lake Richmond. Rezoning to allow canal development threatens these living Thrombolites. When the salinity and water quality of Lake Richmond changes, the Thrombolites will die. Any rezoning to allow this change in the landscape will introduce an unacceptable risk to this unique Thrombolite community. Signage at the lake says it is so threatened that it is “under extremely high risk of destruction in the immediate future.”
The construction of canal walls would be a few hundred metres from the lake. The changes to the hydrogeology are irreversible and are largely unknown – despite the advice given to the EPA and their lack of consideration of this risk. The WAPC, WA Government and the developers will be responsible for destruction of the only known population of this type of Thrombolite on Earth.
Seagrass
Approximately 80% of seagrasses have been lost in Cockburn Sound as a result of either change to water quality or direct physical impacts from the construction of facilities and anchor damage. The EPA has approved further damage with the justification that offsets compensate for this loss. EPA ‘not assessed’ and ‘it is not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations.’
The 1993, the EPA decision (Bulletin 693) assessed an in sea marina and concluded that ‘the proposed marina at Mangles Bay is environmentally unacceptable and should not proceed’. This was based on the damage to the seagrass in the bay and preserving the small amount of seagrass that remains in Cockburn Sound.’
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 156
Submitted by: Jane Elizabeth Lutz (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The amenity of the location would be affected as a road change would be required for HMAS Stirling expansion. • The land is a parkland and a buffer between people and the defence facility. This will cause conflict between defence and tourism. • The marina would not attract tourists and the residential/commercial uses be exclusive to the locality. • A shallow water marina is not appropriate, and tourists don't travel to see such a use. The Wanliss Street proposal is a better option. • There are impacts on seagrasses and regular dredging. No successful seagrass plantings. Penguins feed on the seagrass and there will be tidal flow issues, such as mosquitos. • A 400 m setback from Lake Richmond is not acceptable. Water flows through Lake Richmond, and the proposal may alter its flow to the ocean. • The site could be used as a parkland for all to use. • Opens spaces are areas which assist one's health and wellbeing. This would cost less than building a marina. • The developer could get compensated to not build here, but elsewhere.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 157
Submitted by: Elizabeth Tweedie (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was set aside for recreation/conservation use, not for a marina. • The land should remain Bush Forever but be cleaned etc. so it becomes a good coastal park. • The Little Penguin will not survive the development. • The site should not be supported and retained as a coastal park for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 158
Submitted by: Jacob Pears (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreational and historical uses. The construction of a marina will restrict people using the site. It would remove a place that the local community and tourists have come to value as an iconic part of the region.
The construction and operation of a marina may drastically damage the local environment. The impacts of dredging can have severe impacts upon flora and fauna as they disturb the turbidity of the water and release unnatural amounts nutrients, toxins and other substances that are meant to be released naturally in much smaller quantities. Dredging removes seagrass from the local area and a variety of organisms depend upon seagrass as a habitat etc.
This ecology is important as two particular organisms depend upon the fish, crustaceans and mollusks, the IndoPacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops adimcus) and Little Penguin (Endyptiila minor). The removal of seagrass poses a threat to the food sources of these species. The purpose of the marina is to increase tourism and interest in the region. One of the main forms of tourism is ecotourism. Thousands of people come to this area to take part in dolphin, penguin and sea lion tours. People come here specifically because this area contains two of the three Little Penguin populations in the state. It is likely to harm the tourism industry of Rockingham and other local suburbs.
There are potential impacts it may have on nearby Lake Richmond. The site is used for recreational purposes too. The Thrombolites represent the earliest forms of life on Earth. Those are found in Lake Richmond are distinctly different from any other Thrombolites. They are listed as endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999. The construction of this marina poses a major threat to the Thrombolites. Changes are likely to badly damage or kill these microbial communities.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 159
Submitted by: Trevor Bell (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The site should not be developed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 160
Submitted by: Regina Burgess & Paul Williams (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for many recreation uses and should remain for future generations. • Canal developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. • Point Peron must remain a Bush Forever site as it has historical connections for many people. • The proposal would impact on the flora and fauna of the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 161
Submitted by: Beth Mills (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron was given to the people of WA in 1964 by the Commonwealth, to be used for recreation/conservation purposes, not a marina. • Point Peron is a recreational place used for all persons which should be protected. • The site has flora and fauna which should be protected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 162
Submitted by: Kristine Anne Pettersson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and should not be redeveloped. • The land should remain Bush Forever as it is more suited to a coastal park. The loss of open space is not acceptable for future generations. The site should include areas for dogs to be exercised.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 163
Submitted by: Loretta Pilgrim (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for many recreation uses and should remain for future generations. • Canal developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. • Rates will increase from the proposed development. • There will be mosquito borne diseases in the locality which are a risk. • Point Peron must remain a Bush Forever site as it has historical connections for many people. • The proposal would impact on the flora and fauna of the locality. • Port Rockingham marina would be a better alternative.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 164
Submitted by: Amanda Sturdy (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal does not accord with the site being used as a Bush Forever site and should be retained for future generations. • The site has historical connections as it was used for educational purposes. • The site is used for a range of recreation uses and has health benefits. • The site should be retained as a coastal park to be used by future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 165
Submitted by: Angela Tayler (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment the site has sand nearby which needs to be moved, having canals will compromise the area further. The site should be retained as a coastal park to be used by future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 167
Submitted by: Graham Green (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows: • Point Peron was given to the people of WA in 1964 by the Commonwealth, to be used for recreation/conservation purposes, not a marina. • Canal developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. Canals have been banned elsewhere and are costly to maintain. • Beaches should be protected as they have great health values. • Lake Richmond is a unique place which should be retained for future generations.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 168
Submitted by: Phillip Skinner (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes (i.e. crabbing and fishing) and should be retained for future generations. • The City of Rockingham and Department of Defence do not support the site. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The Little Penguin, Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 169
Submitted by: Stanley John Snook (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is a Bush Forever area which should be retained and not developed as it contains unique flora and fauna. • Seagrass will be negatively impacted by the proposed marina. The site will be impacted by dredging and sediments movements. The Little Penguin will be affected. • Marina developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. • Point Peron should be retained as an "A" class reserve.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 170
Submitted by: D Blackburn (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is a Bush Forever area which should be retained and not developed as it contains unique flora and fauna. • Canal developments have been problematic elsewhere and impact on the natural ecology of an area. Seagrasses and the Little Penguin will be affected. • The site has flora and fauna which should be protected. • The site has recreation value which should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 171
Submitted by: Cheryl Bland (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The site will experience amenity impacts and has recreation values. • The flora and fauna will be affected. The environment should be protected. • Canals are not supported in the community as people will be subject to noise, dust etc. impacts. • There will be health issues from the dust impacts. • The submission states they may need to relocate.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 172
Submitted by: Anthony Denham (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for many recreational uses and should remain for future generations. • Point Peron must remain a Bush Forever site as it has historical connections for many people. • The proposal would impact on the flora and fauna of the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 173
Submitted by: Patricia Godfrey (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal does not accord with a commitment for the land to be used for recreation/conservation purposes. • The site could be improved, which can be done as part of the Cape Peron Coastal Park. • The site has recreation values and tourists access the site which should be retained fir future generations. • Canals are not supported as they have caused issues elsewhere. • The Little Penguin will be affected including other flora and fauna.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 174
Submitted by: Peter John Jobber (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment the the locality has been zoned for higher density and there is a need to retains existing environmental areas got future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 175
Submitted by: Rebecca Kilian (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron should be used for tourism and conservation purposes. Natural assets must be protected. • Flora and fauna will be affected by the proposed development, including seagrasses. • The land was given to the people of WA and should not be sold. • The site has historical recreation connection for many people. • The site is too close to Naval Base and will be have incompatible land uses.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 176
Submitted by: Russell Lejeune (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was set aside for recreation/conservation use, not for a marina. • The land should remain Bush Forever, so form part of a coastal park system. It also assists the health and welfare of persons. • The site has recreation values which should be protected. • The flora and fauna will be affected, including the Little Penguin. • Lake Richmond will be affected by the development. • Ocean levels are rising and will be an issue for this site in future. • The site should be retained a coastal park which will enhance the environment and provide economic benefits.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 177
Submitted by: Graham Malcolm (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as Point Peron must remain a Bush Forever site as it has historical connections for many people.
Another marina has been approved at Rockingham which is better suited as an alternative.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 179
Submitted by: Maurice Gray (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was set aside for recreation/conservation use, not for a marina. • The site has recreation values which should be protected. • There will be traffic and dust issues will construction occurs.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 180
Submitted by: Phillip Jennings (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was set aside for recreation/conservation use, not for a marina. • The land should remain Bush Forever, so form part of a coastal park system. It also assists the health and wellbeing of persons. • The site has recreation values which should be protected. No offset will be able to replace this land. • The flora and fauna will be affected. • The site should be retained as a coastal park which will enhance the environment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 181
Submitted by: Charles Frank Lammers (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Proponent
Proponents Claims for Mangles Bay Marina Based Tourist Precinct project
The proponents of the Mangles Bay Marina project are promoting the major civil engineering undertaking as a concept that is a balance between environmental, social and economic outcomes by:
• Opening up the beach along Mangles Bay to public access. • Constructing a dual use path along the length of the beachfront to the Garden Island Causeway. • Providing a site for another agency to construct affordable family holiday accommodation with beachfront access. • Creating a site for the boating clubs, on a non-commercial leasehold basis, with marina frontage and beach access. • Invoking a seabed lease in the marina and adjoining the boating clubs in which they can build pens and lease them to members. • Providing room for up to 500 pens in total; as required (there is no current commitment to build any pens). • Providing marina space for commercial pens in the public tourist area for commercial charter operators. • Provide a site for others to construct a tourism hub including restaurants, cafes and short-term serviced accommodation. • Completing a $5 million remediation and enhancement of the balance of Cape Peron. • Identifying (but not constructing) a site for a marine science centre.
The Mangles Bay Marina project is based on Cape Peron, with only access and egress to the complex via Mangles Bay. The original Mangles Bay Marina proposal was discontinued in 1985 due to environmental and Defence (HMAS Stirling) concerns.
The current proposal allows organisations to progress any development to marketing and construction stages. There are serious concerns that if Cedar Woods would be the developer, given the company's economic standing to complete the housing estate/marina. Public funding would be required to address another public/private project.
Concerned Resident
Personal Position
• Supports the need to rehabilitate Cape Peron in all areas that impinge on the environmental, social and economic well-being of the Cape. • Is neither anti-development, nor obstructionist in meeting the needs of the community. • Seeks to prevent the Rockingham community permanently losing a large tract of public land that has been promised by various governments since 1964 to remain public, and to be formally recognised and developed as an “A” Class Nature Reserve. • Against the removal of 79 ha of the 178 ha of land vested as public recreation and reserves to be replaced by (sea) water, privately owned facilities and expensive housing; 1% of the original Perth coastal bushland remains; with further threats of destruction proposed with the announcement of the Mangles Bay Marina project plan. A further 5 ha of seagrass areas in Mangles Bay; since the 1950s 80% of seagrass in Cockburn Sound has been lost. Several important fisheries have been closed. • The 2005 and 2010 community consultation processes consisted of public forums, stakeholders' reference group meetings and public displays. • The Mangles Bay Marina project defies the evidence that highlights the dangers of placing the fragile nature under further unsustainable pressures through an excessive engineering undertaking of this nature, arguably (by the proponents). • Supports the appropriate "in tune with nature" plan for the Cape that was produced and clearly enunciated in the 2003 Department of Environment and Conservation draft plan for the Rockingham Lakes -2003-2013. A modified “The Rockingham Lakes Plan” was approved by the Barnett State Government in November 2010. • Since its formulation, has actively promoted the Department of Environment and Conservation (now Department of Parks and Wildlife) Plan is supported. Two separate proposals for the Cape have been prepared by two concerned groups. • Continues to engage with community groups and individuals and assist in the appropriate decision making process to convert Cape Peron into an “A” Class Reserve.
Conflicting Guidelines and Policy Aspirations
The Mangles Bay Marina l has been compared with Directions 2031 and beyond to better understand the aims and objectives of the State government. As Directions 2031 and beyond is a long term strategic guide to development, high level spatial framework and strategic plan that establishes a vision for future growth of the metropolitan Perth and Peel region; it provides a framework to guide the detailed planning and delivery of housing, infrastructure and services necessary to accommodate a range of growth scenarios.
Issues where the Mangles Bay Marina project is in conflict with the specific priorities, vision and themes have been highlighted in information which was attached to this submission.
Previous Development Options
Cape Peron
• Previously proposed development options for the land at Cape Peron during 1956- 2004 had been identified and assessed within the technical, economic and financial areas, under the auspices of coastal environments, developments and management practices. • The aims of the previous development options were to involve a diverse audience from industry, government and the community, including developers, planners, community coastal interest groups, coastal managers and decision makers. • Invitations were also presented to recreational boating clubs and people interested in the coastal environment to make submissions. • None of the previous concepts was taken up.
1985 State Government Technical Committee Study Group Statements
In 1985, the State Government engaged a Technical Committee Study Group, which identified a wide range of requirements regarding any development at Cape Peron including:
• Specific coastal areas were to be developed for regional coastal recreation, coupled with stakeholders seeking a valued coastal location to operate in the areas. • That any impact on the natural system be minimised, particularly at Cape Peron and along the dunes of Shoalwater Bay. • Management costs associated with the public usage of the area were to be accepted. • Optimum opportunity to be provided for self-funding by users of the Cape. • Regional road access to Garden Island and Cape Peron to be provided. • Presence of traffic within Cape Peron to be minimised. • Appropriate access to the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park to be provided, ability for Mangles Bay to service small boat owners interests and capitalise on this requirement, a Short stay and daily user accommodation be provided. • The (then) existing leaseholders (up to 1993) were not regarded as a constraint on any planning of the area, a Full range of family accommodation to be provided within a standing camp/facility. • A Development to be approved by the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority and State Cabinet; with approval being conditional upon: o Preparation of a management plan. o Seagrass protection areas to be out of bounds to anchoring of boats and water skiing activities. o Sand dune management and a foreshore access programme west of the boat ramp to be introduced. o Public toilets to be constructed.
City of Rockingham
In concert with the 1985 the State Government Technical Committee Study Group recommendations, the (then) Shire of Rockingham released their 1985 Expression of Interest to Develop Mangles Bay Marina - Shire of Rockingham, in which the Shire identified:
• The need for boat launching facilities in the locality, due to the high rate of small boat ownership in the Rockingham region and provision of attractive destinations near the boat ramp, as facilities would be heavily used and have major implications for Cape Peron and its adjacent waters. • The State government had made funds available to the Shire to construct a boat ramp and a 135 bay parking area west of the Garden Island Causeway. • That a preferred developer, John Holland Constructions, was proposing a 330 pen marina immediately east of the Garden Island Causeway with abutting land for commercial and hotel/chalet use being integral to the project, and branded as the Mangles Bay Marina (within Mangles Bay): o Result in the enclosure of 5 ha of water and loss of 15 ha of seagrass. o A marine basin to be dredged with a connecting deep water channel in Mangles Bay, with additional costs of dredging to be incurred. o Dredge spoil to be used as fill for the marina and adjacent foreshore on which a land based tourist facility could be developed. o EPA Public Environment Report 1985 concluded that the chosen site was better than any other in the southern Cockburn Sound in terms of social impact, availability of foreshore land and cost of breakwater.
Argument Against Cape Peron Housing Estate and Marina (Mangles Bay Marina Tourist Development)
Unique Region
• Cape Peron is as a gateway to the greater Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, Rockingham beaches and Shoalwater Islands Marine Park complex. An interrelated land, coastal and sea area that is part of a unique region along the Western Australian coastline. The Cape consists of fragile sand and limestone dunes, seagrass beds and vegetation, susceptible waters in Mangles Bay, fish nurseries, and poorly understood geology. • The location is contained within the City of 125,000 citizens that is growing at a great rate (currently 5% per annum) and will require the provisions of environmentally based public areas to a greater extent in the future. The loss of the larger part of Cape Peron to another suburbanisation project would prove a great financial, social and recreational burden on both the Rockingham community and its representative, the City of Rockingham Council.
Prestigious Heritage Listing Opportunity
• The Cape Peron, Lake Richmond (State Heritage Listed in 2014) and Shoalwater Islands Marine Park region is viewed as being equal in potential to other world heritage sites for its natural beauty and environmental value to the nation.
Degradation
• Over a 61 years period continued inaction by Western Australian State governments, has allowed for ongoing flora, fauna and terrestrial degradation on Cape Peron and surrounding waterways. • World heritage significance of Lake Richmond could be under threat during any (future) world heritage listing of the Thrombolite population. • Research of sedimentary distribution shows major erosion continuing along the Mangles Bay shoreline, that will not be addressed by an entrance channel. • Ongoing fishing impact monitoring programmes prove the adverse and continuing impact of human interaction the northern part of the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park and in Cockburn Sound/Mangles Bay.
Site is Not Suitable for Canal Development
• The underlying limestone rock base of Cape Peron and Lake Richmond is of questionable porosity and of doubtful strength. • This poorly understood geological detail has the potential to contaminate ground water, sub strata aquifers and Lake Richmond waters through salinisation, and cause land subsidence due to extensive heavy engineering works located on porous sub strata. • Serious long-term threats are also posed to the remaining 20% of Cockburn Sound’s seagrass fish nurseries. • Essentially, the Mangles Bay Marina project lacks direct access from deep water, a fundamental principle in any modern marina design.
Unacceptable Losses
• Cape Peron is under threat of privatisation to be sold off for developers’ profits. Any land offsets would not be beneficial to local residents. • Removal of much of a declared State Government Bush Forever site to create separated environmental enclaves for fauna and flora enhancement, are counter to world best practices. TEC’s are included in the Mangles Bay Marina project footprint, but not protected by environmentally neutral buffer zones. • A further loss of vegetation complexes and supporting topography (including sand dunes) within the 9% of the remaining Swan Coastal Plain. Threatened and poorly preserved plant communities are endangered, along with declared rare flora sites and stands of specially protected fauna.
An Aboriginal Perspective
• The Aboriginal concept of Cape Peron is that it represents the shape of a local fish, the sand whiting, and part of a wider and significant Aboriginal location that includes the Cape, Cockburn Sound, Shoalwater Bay and Garden Island. • Five specific sites of Aboriginal heritage and/or significance have been identified and will either be destroyed or adversely affected by the Mangles Bay Marina project.
Extensive History of Governments’ Stated Commitments to Retain Cape Reran for Park and Recreation
• Since 1956 both Commonwealth and State governments have regularly identified that the Cape Peron area has needed improvement and proper management. • Whilst diversification of traditional attractions was recommended, Cape Peron was identified as an important tourist destination for low key family orientated accommodation designed to fit into a recreational theme, including a marina (alongside existing water frontages), and a site to enjoy the natural values offered by the area. Also envisaged were traditional chalets, caravan park accommodation, etc. • 1964 Commonwealth-State Agreement, that the State is in agreement with the provision that the land shall be created as a reserve for "Recreation and Parks Land and not for residential, commercial or industrial purposes”. • In 1964 the Rockingham Coastal Nature Reserve vision was enhanced with plans to upgrade Cape Peron from a "C” Class Nature Reserve to an "A” Class Nature Reserve. • Cape Peron was also recognised as an environmental and physical part of Garden Island, the latter providing the benchmark for what Cape Peron had been originally; and what the Commonwealth Government had proposed for the ‘'A” Class Nature Reserve. 87% of Garden Island has been rehabilitated by the Commonwealth to a world recognised standard that concentrates on the natural beauty of the area prior to European settlement. • 1968 - With the construction of the Waste Water Treatment Plant at Cape Peron, the Commonwealth re-emphasised the stipulated use of the Cape as to be “Recreation and Parks Land and not for residential, commercial or industrial purposes" except for the treatment plant infrastructure only. • 1969 - Premier Sir David Brand said that government departments and the Rockingham Shire Council were being asked to prepare a master plan for the development of Cape Peron as a park and recreational reserve and that the “amenities of the area would progressively become available to the general public”. • 1971 - Compensate for Loss of Coastal Usage -“Under the South West Corridor Plan and the Town Planning Scheme, plans were released for vast developments in all these areas. In order to compensate for the loss of coastal usage in Cockburn Sound occasioned by the growth of the Kwinana industrial area, the resulting residential expansion of Rockingham and the establishment of the naval base on Garden Island, a town site 712 ha in extent, known as Port Kennedy and occupying the tip of Becher Point, was reserved by the Government for public recreation uses. • 1971 - Compensate for Loss of Garden Island -“The building of the naval facilities has, to a very large extent, closed Garden Island as a holiday resort. The general public, access to it is only possible by boat. Visitors, except with special permission. Fortunately for Rockingham, it is the possessor of many miles of beautiful beaches; as such developments as are planned at Port Kennedy, the Lakes area and Secret Harbour, will do much to compensate beach lovers and holiday makers for the loss of Garden Island.” This loss must include the compensatory value of the Cape Peron Reserve. • 2000 Bush Forever - The aim of the policy is to provide an implementation framework that will ensure bushland protection and management issues in the Perth Metropolitan region are appropriately addressed and integrated with broader land use planning and decision making. • 2010 - Rockingham Lakes Regional Park Management Plan - passed as State Government policy. Ongoing Rehabilitation Attempts of Cape Peron Bushland
• Various State governments to credit the efforts of numerous organisations in their attempts to rehabilitate parts of the Cape / Bush Forever site. Camp lease holders do make a concerted effort to maintain and improve their areas of responsibilities; although facilities are usually not extensively upgraded, due to the ongoing threat of eviction. • This failure is also evidenced by the inconsistent funding provided to organisations and voluntary groups associated with the Cape, such as Department of Parks and Wildlife, Rockingham Environment Centre Naragebup, Friends of Point Peron and World War II Coastal Gun Battery conservationists, to name just four active participants.
Failure to Take Heed of Other Canal Development Disasters in Western Australia
Governments' need to prevent emulating problems experienced at other similar marina and canal development projects. In Western Australia these include the following:
• Port Geographe - seaweed, siltation, property valuation losses, banking and insurance cover withdrawals. • Mandurah Canals - siltation, sulphur soil pollution and marine life depletion. • Yunderup - eutrophication, mosquito problems and Ross River fever experience. • Creery Creek - foreshore environmental damage, water table reversal resulting in extensive fauna destruction through saline poisoning. • Port Cockburn - with its promises of extensive community wide infrastructure that has been reduced to a struggling high cost housing estate. • Hillary’s Marina - with its high turnover of businesses due to unsatisfactory levels of custom. • Jurien Bay Marina - winter storm damage, siltation, sulphur soil pollution, eutrophication and marine life depletion.
Interstate Experiences with Inland Canal and Waterway Estate Developments
• Banned in NSW - Coastal Policy and State Environment Planning Policy 50. • Banned in Victoria - Coastal Strategy 2008. • Extensively restricted in Tasmania following an attempt to ban - The Canal Estates Act 2011. • Extensively restricted in Queensland -Queensland Coastal Plan 3 Feb 2012. • Banned in the Northern Territory - Northern Territory Planning Act.
Defence
• Urban encroachment is a serious issue for Defence establishments. Defence approaches all proposals for development adjacent to military bases with caution. In particular, an increase in marine traffic at close proximity to the HMAS Stirling Naval Base will not be a desirable outcome. • Defence does not support the option preferred by the (former) Rockingham Development Office as it suggested a realignment of the Causeway. The Defence Department has stated that it has no requirement to alter the Causeway and does not intend to replace it. • The Mangles Bay Marina project envisages a relocation of the Navy Cadet Unit TS ANZAC and the entry to the Causeway. Defence would expect equitable compensation in any land swap that the Mangles Bay Marina project may propose. • Defence will require all environmental issues raised by the proposed Mangles Bay Marina project, such as silting, flushing and effects on seagrass populations, to be addressed to the full satisfaction of local and federal environmental authorities.
Developers (Cedar Woods) Misinformation and Questionable Issues
• Issued misinformation by calling the Mangles Bay Marina project the Mangles Bay Tourist Marina Based Precinct; when in fact it is an inland canal development with a limited marina aspect to it, with only a single access/departure point into Mangles Bay, whilst resuming much of the currently public accessed beachfront along the Bay. • The Mangles Bay Marina will provide much needed protected boating facilities for Mangles Bay users. This cannot be entirely achieved as the bay moorings will remain in place in open waters and be subject to further weather induced problems for those boat owners who cannot carry the financial burden of marina membership. The issue of winter storm casualties will persist due to poor maintenance of moorings. • Agreed to rehabilitate only a limited 20 ha of bushland in the Cape Peron region. Those parts of bushland needing rehabilitating will, not be rehabilitated but dug up, relocated as land fill for other sites, or flooded as part of the private canal network, canal and channel infrastructures or used as private luxury residential lots. • Cedar Woods cannot argue a shortage of urban housing as 4,100 ha has been identified in the Government's Directions 2031 and beyond, South West Sub Region against a need of an additional 41,000 dwellings by 2031. At R30, on average, there is land already set aside for 123,000 dwellings. • A vision of providing passive recreation facilities such as walkways and information are meaningless marketing speak, which translates to pedestrian paths threading through a housing estate and alongside economically and environmentally questionable canals. • There is a requirement by the Minister for the Environment to provide an offset of 56 ha of comparable coastal bushland. Cedar Woods has so far failed to specify where this area would be found. Advice from independent environmental scientists is that no such area exists on the Swan Coastal Plain, therefore casts doubt on the whole enterprise or else on the credibility of the environmental regulation system.
Lack of Planning Details
• Planning specifics are not being made available for comment due to (claimed) advanced planning details not having been actioned, along with commercial confidentiality provisions. This strategy of deliberate drip feeding of information by Cedar Woods and LandCorp is not a transparent process. • Extensive planning, costing and construction parameters do exist; as Cedar Woods needs to operate within a workable business plan with strict formula and matrix project formats, and have detailed plans of infrastructure that would represent, a viable and profitable Mangles Bay Marina project. • There is concern that the public and City of Rockingham Councillors would find it impossible to comment validly on economic impacts without the above mentioned information.
Doubts Proponent Developer Able To Complete Project
• Cedar Woods, ability to undertake the Mangles Bay Marina development is under question. • Cedar Woods (or their subsidiary $2 company Cranfords) has never attempted an inland marina. Their projects have either been conventional housing developments or else marinas in estuaries or rivers. • Currently, proposed construction is over a ten year period accompanied by serious local community intrusions and disruptions to residents’ daily lives, along with unresolved traffic issues during and after construction and construction site pollution to an unacceptable level. • Previous mismanagement of development in the Mandurah canal sites by Cedar Woods has resulted in severe salinity problems of groundwater, which has devastated vast areas of natural bushland and adversely impacted on associated natural waterways.
LandCorp Claim Ambiguity
• LandCorp’s claim of providing low cost tourist accommodation is viewed as being ambiguous. The bulk of the Mangles Bay Marina project is a luxury canal side residential development with an extremely small remnant available for affordable public use; that being a small boating hard stand and a very limited site for affordable, low cost, holiday accommodation. • Further, the area designated for the low cost tourist accommodation; over half of this site is within the odour buffer from the Cape Peron Water Treatment Plant which is planned not to close until at least 2025. • LandCorp’s income from the sale of development land, that was originally public land identified as a future “A” Class Reserve, is deemed a purely commercial undertaking and contrary to the type of public space development that is urgently required at Cape Peron. • Regular articles in the newspaper media report that many properties are being purchased by cashed up foreign buyers who have no intention of spending much, if any, time in them but to purchase as investments, and not even renting them out. The idea of an upmarket housing enclave built on former public recreational parkland is a denial of recreational space for the Shoalwater/Palm Beach citizens.
EPA’s Deliberations
• The environmental research conducted by Cedar Woods (costing $3.6 million) and the PER documentation have been professionally criticised as superficial in its sciences, ill-informed and poorly presented. • The Mangles Bay Marina project's environmental processes indicate a lack of robustness to provide proper environmental stewardship. Experiences at other Western Australian marina sites indicate that the EPA has not been effective in its deliberations to eliminate extensive and harmful outcomes attributed to these sites, outcomes that could be replicated at Cape Peron.
Long Term Cost Impediments
• The Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage and the Western Australia Local Government Association have expressed reservations following expensive complications involving similar projects at Port Geographe / Busselton, Yunderup, Creery Creek, Mandurah and Jurien Bay. • The Mangles Bay Marina project responsibilities will be transferred to the City of Rockingham along with its associated management and maintenance costs. There are serious concerns that these financial impediments would be met through higher property rates and loans taken by Council.
Construction Problems for Local Community
• Cedar Woods are proposing a Mangles Bay Marina project timeframe, initially ten years, is now being extended to over 20 years for construction including seven years of pile driving and suction dredging. • Further, substantial construction traffic problems are envisaged along Lake Street, Safety Bay Road, Fisher Street and Rae Road resulting from the 200+ truck movements per day, based on the projections announced by the developers. • During the building of the Garden Island Causeway (1960-70’s) excessive community disruptions were suffered by local residents and those who used the Cape Peron and environs road system over an extended period of time.
Road Traffic Debacle
• The road network on Cape Peron is currently congested at peak times, primarily by traffic travelling to and from Garden Island. • The current unacceptable concentration of local traffic on the Cape will be further encumbered to a single access/egress corridor; with its starting point being metres from the State heritage listed Lake Richmond. Traffic from Parkin Street to a new Cape Peron access road would conflict with the Lake.
Flooding of Lake Richmond Flood Plain Area
• The Mangles Bay Marina project has identified the need to extensively realign the current Cape Peron stormwater drainage infrastructure. There is a possibility of flooding of homes around Lake Richmond following the replacement of large capacity open drains. • Lake Richmond is the overflow repository for the Safety Bay Flood Plain, which regularly flooded prior to the construction in 1964 of the area's current wide-ranging stormwater arrangement. Local residents have concerns with the impact of the drainage realignment. • Submissions state that Lake Richmond is 0.6 metres AHD and if 0.9 metres is added for a sea level rise, it will not drain, especially with pipes being located underground resulting in widespread flooding. Proponents’ responses to date indicate the installation of pump, which are counter to State planning requirements concerning inland waterways. Natural tidal flushing is what is stipulated.
Community Members Health and Wellbeing
• The Mangles Bay Marina project’s construction phase will be a source of adverse health issues for residents. • The therapeutic value of nature and bush land settings within the suburban environment is a concern for the wellbeing of local residents. • The less tangible aspects of long term physical and mental values being swamped by the marketing spin and proponents’ presentation of the Mangles Bay Marina project’s advantages.
Boating Club Members Views
• Is the building of a marina on Cape Peron a "want” rather than a “need’’ for most of these owners and/or existing Rockingham/Cape Peron boating clubs’ members? • Periodic surveys by boat owners indicate that most local boat owners will not be able to afford marina involvement.
Excess Boating Facilities for Rockingham
• In 1998 LandCorp stated the need for boating and maintenance facilities in the south of Cockburn Sound; identified in several tourism and recreational studies of the area. • In response to the above, why is LandCorp seeking over 1,000 boating berths in the Rockingham region, when 350 were considered to be adequate? 500 berths are planned for the Port Rockingham marina at Wanliss Street, Rockingham Beach. This project was previously approved but could readily be constructed.
Boat Launch Area West of Causeway
• In the Mangles Bay Marina project a larger area has been identified for boat launching and parking. Although this area is part of the project, it is not included in the rezoning. An assumption that public assets could be used to promote the private advantages of the project.
Recreational Camp Sites
• The Rockingham RSL Sub Branch’s low quality buildings would be inappropriate within an expensive residential enclave. The branch would have to find an alternative location. • The Mangles Bay Marina requires the removal of two low cost accommodation sites; the City of Perth RSL Caravan Park and AIW Camp, and the partial removal of others without any land replacement or financial assistance. • There is the loss of a land use enjoyed by the local boating and fishing clubs, to be replaced by a limited purpose. No pens will be provided in the marina, with the cost of further development to be sought from boating club members.
Visitors to the Cape
• Many generations have enjoyed the values of Cape Peron. • Concerns are being expressed that future swimming, fishing, boating and other recreational activities, and surrounding areas, will be restricted as the area would be swamped by private development accompanied by extensive restrictions.
Unrealistic Estimates of Employment Opportunities
• Proponents’ (Rockingham Chamber of Commerce, Cedar Woods and LandCorp) claims of benefits with jobs being created resulting from the Mangles Bay Marina project vary and are impossible to substantiate. • There is no research to justify the Mangles Bay Marina project from an employment generation viewpoint. • Employment positions within the marina would be limited with most employees drawn from existing marina industry locations elsewhere.
Conflicting Commercial Centres
• The development of a sizeable Cape Peron commercial centre would adversely impact on other closely located commercial concerns at Shoalwater, Rockingham Beach and The Anchorage. • Other businesses have expressed concerns of the loss of the natural environment on Cape Peron, that would adversely impinge on the viability of their businesses. City of Rockingham Leadership Requirement
The submission seeks the City of Rockingham to:
• Undertake a greater effort in realising the boating community's need for decent marina/small craft facilities, through the support of the Wanliss Street, Port Rockingham facility, with its spacious and uninterrupted water approaches from deep water. • Provide the communities input into plans and suggest “better and sustainable aspects" of what is an "A Class Regional Reserve on Cape Peron”, in all respects, except in name and legal standing. • Coordinate representation in architectural design and to communicate design ideas to rejuvenate the natural assets (not suburbanise) of the greater Cape Peron and Lake Richmond region.
City of Rockingham’s Approach
• The City is on record as stating that the marina (itself) within Cape Peron will never meet all the environmental constraints but these shortcomings will be balanced by the benefits resulting from the Mangles Bay Marina project. • This “balance" has not been identified or qualified in independent assessment by the City; with Council relying on the submissions of proponents and taking the lead from the State Government. • There is an absence of any formal “balanced local voice" representation by the City with regards to Mangles Bay Marina project deliberations. • The “in principle" backing of the Mangles Bay Marina project, predated the EPA’s environmental report by 10 months. The timing of the motion’s success in Council gives the impression that some predetermined discussions/agreements were in place between the City and Cedar Woods/LandCorp.
Other Projects Having Accumulative Adverse Effect
Other projects in Immediate Location
There are five projects in the Cape Peron and Lake Richmond area, which will impose a great impost on residents, including:
• The Mangles Bay Marina, Defence Housing Australia’s Palm Beach Caravan Park redevelopment site; the Rockingham Beach foreshore redevelopment, the upgrading of HMAS Stirling on Garden Island, and the proposal to use the remnants of the Garden Island road reserve. • The compounding threat to the well-being of Lake Richmond, emerged from Defence Housing’s proposal to construct residential development in the locality. • The proposed residential development on the former Palm Beach Caravan Park is counter the protection of the Lake; reference is made to Directions 2031 and beyond greening objectives. • The Mangles Bay Marina project proposes a two to eight storey residential development of, primarily, non-defence personnel which is in conflict with the need to increase the buffer between suburbia and the Lake. • The redevelopment is counter to a previous sustainability approach; to obtain privately owned land that existed at various locations around the Lake. • The increase in large numbers of residents and visitors is not in the best interest of Lake Richmond. Defence Housing’s references regarding the concept of healthy living, both physical and mental, are not complementary. • A realisation of having reached human interface saturation needs to be addressed. These concerns were amplified by Defence Housing in terms of; the environmental care in designing the development, the State EPA's hydrological considerations, that the caravan park property was already considered a degraded environmental site, the need for stormwater and groundwater improvements due to high nutrient levels, bush fire breaks and the importance of the Richmond Lakes Management Plan. • The increase in traffic resulting from the Defence Housing’s development. Vehicular access; road reserve cross sections and traffic capacities were highlighted along with a range of other disputed ideas, such as traffic control; residential and visitor vehicle access / egress and parking; and the Palm Beach Primary School pedestrian and associated parent traffic problems. • To that end the contracted entity is in situ for a relatively short time, whereas the local community has to bear the long term legacy and the local government the costs of maintaining the facility in perpetuity. • As with the Mangles Bay Marina in obtaining a marina for Rockingham, and Defence Housing’s proposal for a high rise residential development; both are in the wrong location. • A marina is needed for Rockingham but to be completed on the Wanliss Street site. The Defence Housing proposal is viewed as being an ideal solution to a Rockingham City focussed hub centred on a railway station / city / commercial district, such as is being progressed at Cockburn Central / Success, but not on the shores of an environmentally sensitive regional park and lake.
Garden Island Highway Road Reserve
• The removal of the eastern part of Point Peron Road and replacing it with a widened Memorial Drive will dramatically increase the possibility that Richmond Avenue will be opened up to through traffic. • There are social impacts on individuals, how does the State government intend to conciliate the concerns of the hundreds of citizens residing in Richmond Avenue, Pape Place, Recreational Drive, Frederic Street, Safety Bay Road, Lake Street, Fisher Street and adjoining avenues to the opening up of Richmond Avenue and substantially increasing the residential numbers north of the Lake with regards to a range of impacts.
Marina Needed In Rockingham
Port Rockingham
• A regional marina is needed, but at Port Rockingham, Wanliss Street, Rockingham Beach, the site that has already been approved and would meet the demands of local boat owners. • The Port Rockingham project could provide the catalyst to enhance the existing commercial, recreational and residential precinct at the "most suitable commercial/tourist venue" within the Rockingham City, to co-locate the wide ranging needs of residents and visitors alike. • It allows Cape Peron to remain a natural sanctuary and permit the area to be improved to the level it deserves.
The submission also included detailed information assessing the amendment against the aims and objectives of Directions 2031 and beyond.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 182
Submitted by: Oliver Frances Mooney (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes and should not be redeveloped. The land belonged to the Navy and should of been offered to people to buy. The submission requests that the land be retained for future uses and illustrated a plan of what the site could look like.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 183, 184
Submitted by: Carol Newton, Fred Newton (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has environmental values which should be retained. Lake Richmond is unique and will be impacted including the Little Penguins, seagrasses etc. • The Bush Forever area should not be redeveloped. • The proposed development is in the wrong location. A coastal park is supported for the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 185
Submitted by: Heath Bennett (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site was given to the State for recreation/conservation purposes.
The site has unique environmental values which should be retained, as environmental conditions will not protect the environment. Mandurah is an example of where it hasn't worked. Bush Forever should not be removed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 186
Submitted by: Patricia Carmichael (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposal will further degrade the environment and affect seagrasses, marine life etc. The site should be protected and vegetated to protect our wildlife.
The EPA report refers to a number of negative impacts on the environment, such as water quality, seagrasses, marine fauna. Ocean pollution will result as lead, plastics and debris will end up in the water which is toxic to sea life.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 187
Submitted by: Martin Chambers (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as bush forever site cannot be offset with a comparable area. Point Peron forms an important part of the ecosystem and nature based experience that visitors seek. Rezoning a significant area of Point Peron will undermine these values and place the ecosystem at risk.
Environmental approvals recognise there is a risk of damage but place minimal emphasis on monitoring. There is no certainty that Lake Richmond can be protected from salt water ingress and the fish spawning on the sand flats will the affected.
If alternatives were available, it might he argued that the ecosystem could cope. There are no limestone headland/tuart trees/freshwater lake/extensive seagrass and sand flats anywhere. Setting aside a similar area as offset for the loss of this Bush Forever site will simply not work. Tourists come to see penguins, sea lions, dolphins, cormorants, and pelicans rely on this unique ecosystem. Penguins and sea lions in particular show site fecundity. These species are available for tourists to see close to a capital city. There is no alternative site that can offset this bush forever site.
The 1964 sale agreement between Commonwealth and State should be honoured. This agreement states that the land is to be set aside, after the expiration of the recreation camp leases, for 'parks and recreation'. The only reason this area did not become an 'A' class reserve at the time was these recreation camp leases. In considering rezoning, the Point Peron land ought to be considered as if it were an “A” class reserve.
There is a unique opportunity to preserve the whole area. Levels of neglect and degradation of particular parts do not form valid reasons to develop or rezone.
Should subsequent administrations ignore negotiated agreements what value or faith would anybody be able to place on any negotiation at any time? It is fundamental to democratic processes that are carried out in good faith and agreements signed by elected representatives are not overruled, certainly not without due process and taking into account community wishes. There seems to be very little support for the development outside of the government; the developer, and those with vested interests, with such widespread opposition, the land should not be rezoned.
The proponents of the marina state that it will be a boom to business and tourism, implying a commercial use for the site. An alternative, site for a marina has been approved at Wanliss Street.
A walk along the Rockingham foreshore boardwalks reveal that Rockingham is in no need of more waterfront coffee shops and restaurants. Businesses, tourists, residents of Rockingham do not need this land to be rezoned as it will provide nothing that is not already available, aside from boat pens and if there was sufficient demand these could be provided by the Wanliss Street.
Land at Port Coogee shows marina front lots that include a jetty envelope, are now on the market for much less. Fees for boat pens have fallen and there are currently vacancies at Fremantle Sailing Club. Hence, there has to be concern about the commercial viability of the project. Failed projects such as Geographe Bay Marina become a drain on the state and local council resources and, more particularly, have the potential to become environmental disasters.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 188
Submitted by: Jill Hardman (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will impact on the environment and will destroy Bush Forever. • The development is detrimental to humans given global warming is occurring which is causing sea level rises. • People will be impacted by the effects of global warming and there will be costs involved. A flooded regional park is easier to deal with.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 189
Submitted by: Paul Kinsella (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has flora and fauna which should be protected as it adds to its tourist appeal. • The developer offers no assurances for any impacts. There will be water contamination which will impact the locality and Lake Richmond. • The land was subject to an agreement that it should be protected for recreation/conservation purposes. • Point Peron was given to the people of WA in 1964 by the Commonwealth, to be used for recreation/conservation purposes, not a marina. • Point Peron is a recreational place used for all persons which should be protected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 190
Submitted by: Kiarra Littleford (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation and health purposes and should not be redeveloped. Animals in the locality will be impacted.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 191
Submitted by: Karen Martin (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for many recreational uses and should remain for future generations. Further cafes are not required at this site. • The site will lose its easy going nature and the local fishing club will not be the same. • The proposal might bring tourists but will be a cost to locals. • The proposal would impact on the flora and fauna of the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 192
Submitted by: James Mumme (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Failure to Adequately Consider Other Options
“The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise various zones and reserves and Bush ... [to] facilitate the development of a tourist based marina...”
The history of various proposals regarding Cockburn Sound reveals a preoccupation on the part of politicians and planners with Mangles Bay. A container port was proposed until shown to be inappropriate on both environmental and structural grounds - the seagrass beds were at risk and the Karst limestone substrate was not sufficiently sound to support container cranes.
Proposals for a marina have surfaced, all of them myopically fixated on the vicinity of Mangles Bay except a private one off the beach at Wanliss Street. Ironically that one, the Port Rockingham marina, received all approvals quickly and has consistently received popular support. It is evident that this was because it was a rational site for a marina, with virtually no environmental complications. Ironic in that one company has money but major problems and the other no money and also no problems. Fond hopes that they could get together and give everyone in the community what they want. However, it has been stymied through lack of funds.
Funding for the preparatory work for the most recent iteration of a Marina emerged in the lead up to the 2001 Federal Election when John Howard offered some seed money through one candidate. The Council and State Government came to the party for their own reasons. The money enabled the Rockingham Kwinana Development Office to prepare a Feasibility Study as a Section 16 ERA process, the highest and earliest level of environmental assessment. It was clear at that stage that the ERA had concerns regarding the proposal’s acceptability.
At the public meetings in 2005 to discuss the initial versions of the present proposal, consultant town planner Bill Burrell gave the major presentation. I asked him publicly why he had not included in his report an analysis of other locations in the region for a marina. He replied that his brief from the Rockingham Kwinana Development Office was only for this one site - just one example of the limited thinking of planners. I was shocked at his reply and, as events later proved, the proponents were evidently concerned too. I was invited to attend the Stakeholders meetings for the Feasibility Study (ERA Act Section 16) and subsequently further Stakeholder meetings up until the second last round.
During the first series of Stakeholders meetings managed by Strategen on behalf of the RKDO, it was announced that a comparative desk top study of other sites in the City had been conducted. The conclusion was predictably that the inland Cape Peron site was the best but beyond generalities little detail was released. This was the first of many instances of deficiencies in the planning and process of this project which have led so many in the community to be sceptical of the wisdom of proceeding.
Clearly the process had been backwards, a rationalising rather than a rational process. Surely a proper process would involve objective consideration of all possible options first, then the presentation of these to both experts and the public, and finally a logical comparison of the costs, benefits and acceptability of all proposals before Feasibility Studies were conducted into the most acceptable. As it was this omission has from the beginning left the public with the perception that there is something rotten about the proposal. I hope the WAPC accepts that public confidence in planning processes is important and that planning needs to both be honest and appear to be honest.
Relevant to this issue is the meaning of this statement in the amendment. 1280/41, "The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise various zones and reserves ...” (p.1) The most common meaning of rationalise is to “justify one’s behaviour by plausible explanations, as to deceive oneself and others” [particularly after the event] (Macquarie Dictionary Revised Third Edition). That’s what the process appears to have been to myself and many others. I’m aware that the intended use in a planning context of ‘rationalise’ is most probably “to remove unreasonable elements from” or “to make rational or conformable to reason.” But I do want the WAPC to hear how the process of this Mangles Bay Marina appears to the public.
Outcome from WAPC
• The WAPC should reject the amendment as being founded on an original irrational process of choosing a site. • Failing that, the WAPC should withdraw the amendment process and require the proponents to demonstrate that the costs and benefits social, economic and environmental of the Mangles Bay Marina proposal are better than any other proposal, for instance the costs and benefits of the Cape Peron Coastal Park, the Port Rockingham marina and constructing or extending a marina at Henderson or any other sites or than doing nothing. • Failing that, the WAPC should withdraw the amendment process until the Mangles Bay Economic Study has been published and the public allowed sufficient time to digest the claimed costs and benefits of this option and comment before the rezoning is concluded.
Lack of Evidence for Purpose as a Tourist Attraction
“The proposed amendment will facilitate the development of a tourist based marina, as follows: A marina village combining tourist based commercial uses, cafes, restaurant etc.”
In spite of the use of this phrase ‘tourist based’ for over ten years, no evidence has been presented by the proponents that there is a demand from tourists for a marina or for more commercial uses over and above what is already available at Rockingham foreshore.
On the contrary there is evidence from surveys of foreign tourists to Australia that marina and commercial facilities are not high on their priorities (unpublished DPaW survey presented at SWIMP Seminar in July 2015 available from Terry Goodlich, Manager Regional Parks). Instead foreign tourists visit Australia for our unique wildlife and our relatively pristine natural environment. Specifically in Rockingham foreign tourists come mostly for our penguins, our Australian sea lions and fishing. Of Australian interstate tourists visiting WA ‘Grey nomads’ comprise the majority: if they visit Rockingham with water craft, they are most unlikely to have anything bigger than tinnies or canoes/wave skis.
If they visit without water craft, they are likely to use the existing ferry services or hire small craft. None of these uses requires a marina. So the question remains, What evidence is there that tourists to Rockingham would be attracted here by a marina and how many could be expected?
Further available evidence is from DPaW’s traffic counter placed on Pt. Peron Road west of the Camp School. Monthly counts of inbound vehicles are running at 50,000, or an estimated 600,000 vehicles a year. Vehicles to the Point are known to carry at least two people each on average. This gives a total of 100,000 visitors a month or 1,200,000 visitors a year. It is clear that, whatever else these visitors do while in Rockingham, they are driving to the Point for its natural features - sightseeing, bush and beach walking, fishing, swimming, snorkelling.
Penguin Island records 93,000 official visitors through the ferry service plus an unknown number who walk across the sandbank.
Evidence from other similar marina developments has not been adduced to support the case of the Mangles Bay Marina. For example Port Coogee has struggled to attract boat owners to buy its pens and has not become known as a tourist attraction (observations on site). The marinas at Yunderup, Port Mandurah and Port Geographe similarly are not magnets for tourists.
One source of visitors and purchasers is likely to be rich Asians who are seeking to invest moneys in safe markets and to have places for their children who may be studying in Australia to live once they graduate or places for themselves to retire to. The recent Four Corners program documented cases where million dollar houses were bought and shut up for years and one case where a $4 million house was demolished. Clearly these people are not tourists at all though they may be the early investors in this project unconcerned at owning land that would be uninhabitable for ten years or more. They are likely to be absentee landlords who contribute little to the local economy and less to the local culture.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The amendment should be rejected on economic grounds because it has a faulty fundamental rationale lacking in evidence.
Concerns over the Unstated Intentions of the Proponents
“The proposed amendment will facilitate the development of a tourist based marina, as follows:... A marina village”
Since the first public meetings in 2005 and the feasibility study in 2006 the marina has been central to the proposal. The rationale for the whole project - canals, housing, commercial precinct - has always been centred on the marina and the expectations of its supporters in the community have been first and foremost for a marina. In the PER (2012 p 27) the indicative staging showed excavation and dredging of the waterways component as stages 1, 2 and 3. Then early in 2015 a new staging was produced by the proponents which had land clearing beginning in the east along Safety Bay Road/Hymus Street up to the nominal edge of the marina as stages 1 and 2.
Subsequently in response to concerns by the City of Rockingham that the proponents were backing away from constructing the marina, the proponent said that a bank guarantee would be provided to the City of Rockingham to represent a commitment by the proponent to construct the marina. However, this guarantee was to be provided only as titles were created over the land component. In other words, lots could be sold independently of construction of the waterways. There has been no mention of the canals in this latest correspondence, only the marina (Answer given by Mayor). This raises the question of how seriously do the proponents take the vision of a marina with canals. This concern is reinforced by the knowledge that by far the most expensive component and the riskiest part of the whole project is the waterways and it makes sense that the most profitable component would be the housing development.
When I asked Marcus Deshon, State MD of Cedar Woods “What would happen if not enough blocks are sold to fund the infrastructure?” he replied that “projects are assessed on their entirety, not a stage by stage basis” This makes little sense to me. The experience of the Port Geographe Marina is a case in point where the State Government came to the rescue of a failing project after the proponent failed and Council and the banks refused to contribute more funds. The rescue happened in the context of a looming State election and the Treasurer as local member. If sufficient blocks are not sold, would money be coming from LandCorp in a fiscal environment where the purchase of even needed railcars has had to be postponed? Given Cedar Woods’ declared unwillingness to allow the public to see the Mangles Bay Economic Study, there has been nothing to reassure the public that their business model is sound.
Part of this context is the current price for Cedar Woods shares which has fallen to nearly half of its peak. This suggests to the public that the company is dependent on pre-sales of blocks to obtain cash to fund the construction of the marina.
Given the length of construction period and the amount of pile driving, dredging and trucking during that period, it is hard to see the public being interested in purchasing blocks up front, particularly if there is some doubt about whether there will be a marina and canals.
Outcome from WAPC
• The WAPC must reassure the public that the proponents will not deliver a housing development in place of Bush Forever. • The WAPC must insist that the proponents provide a bank guarantee to cover the cost of the waterways component BEFORE any land clearing takes place.
Lack of Evidence of Local Needs for Boat Pens
Of residents of Rockingham the great majority are most unlikely to require anything like 700 wet pens or boat stackers. It is noteworthy that 90% of Perth’s registered recreational boats are kept on trailers and require boat launching facilities (DoT Boating Study 2008 p 14). I am aware of the more recent DoT study that shows 98,000 registered boats in September 2015 for which the DoT is charging the public $154 to obtain more specific breakdowns (personal communication with Jason Nunn of DoT). Perhaps the WAPC is able to access this study?
The earlier study confirms the 2008 overall proportions by breaking down boat registration by Local Government Area Dec 2007. Kwinana has 39 boats over 7.5 metres or 1.7% of total registered boats in Kwinana while Rockingham has 249 over 7.5 m or 9.8% of total boats registered (DoT 2008 p 23).
Certainly there is a very small number of membersof The Cruising Yacht Club who own large keeled yachts and would prefer to have them penned rather than moored out in Mangles Bay. But there is no evidence that this number is large enough to justify a 700 pen marina. For the Fishing Club virtually all their 500 active boat using members are known to have trailerable boats.
Observations of boats moored in Mangles Bay where there was a rapid increase in moorings due to the declared DoT sunset clause a few years ago indicate that the majority of the moorings are unoccupied, perhaps they were put in in expectation of benefits later. Many of these moorings are dangerously close together.
Media reports showing beached yachts following storms usually contain statements justifying why a marina is needed but they never tell the whole story. Personal communications with yacht owners invariably indicate that the vessels broke their moorings because of poor maintenance.
Again, the proponents have failed to ground their case in evidence that they could easily have produced had they wished. That they have not done so appears to suggest that they too know that this is not a valid justification for their project.
Anecdotally there are concerns amongst boat owners about how much penning their boats would cost and who would fund the construction of the pens and the infrastructure of a marina. The proponents’ have presented no evidence as to the affordability of the infrastructure or of rental of pens. Members known to me have referred to a top down decision-making process by which a few stakeholders put out the message that the whole club wants the Mangles Bay Marina.
Rather than to cater for the above groups, there is little justification for a marina with its touted ability to house up to 700 boats of Rockingham boaties. It may be argued instead that it would cater for demand from owners of larger craft unable to find pens or moorings on the Swan River or towards the north. This is unlikely. The Port Coogee Boat Harbour provides 60 residential canal berths and a marina with about 300 boat pens to be built in two stages: demand for these has not been anywhere near what was projected with only about 30 boats counted in pens at the moment.
Moreover, most of the Swan River/northern group of owners can reasonably be expected to be ‘absentee boat owners’ for much of the year. In other words, their contribution to the economy of Rockingham would be negligible. Again, in the absence of access to the Mangles Bay Economic Study the community cannot objectively assess this economic issue.
Therefore, there are serious doubts about the validity of this justification. If within Government there were a serious commitment to a marina, they would have got behind the 500 pen Port Rockingham marina and ensured that it would have been able to find a mere $50 million before its environmental approvals lapsed. Even at this point Government could revive the proposal if they were genuine.
The slump in the mining boom and uncertainties about the Chinese economy have had widespread impacts on the WA economy. One has only to visit boat sale yards to observe the numbers of craft, especially larger luxury craft for sale. Such boats remain registered with DoT of course thus inflating the figures of boats needing pens. Outcome from WAPC
• Before approving this amendment, WAPC should first require the proponent to demonstrate that there is indeed projected demand from tourists for a significant proportion of the 700 pens or stackers. • Before approving this amendment, WAPC should first require the proponent to demonstrate that there is indeed projected demand from owners of >7.5 metre long craft resident outside of Rockingham. • Before approving this amendment, the WAPC should first require the proponent to demonstrate that there is projected demand from residents of Rockingham for sufficient of the balance of the 700 pens/stackers to justify the removal of access of 124,000 members of the public to so much reserved open space and to justify the taking of such economic and environmental risks by the City of Rockingham.
Misleading Information Regarding Location
“The amendment seeks to rezone land in Mangles Bay to facilitate the construction of a new marina”.
At stake here is the reputation of the WAPC as a source of reliable and objective information. It is unbelievable that the staff of the WAPC could make such an error but it is also instructive.
The DoT study referred to above contains the following “Rockingham is also the site for an existing Marina development proposal in Mangles Bay (Cape Peron Tourist Park). Mangles Bay with its north facing coastline and excellent boating environment is considered a good location for a marina. The recommendations in this study include, as a Medium-Term initiative; “The development of a marina in Mangles Bay” (DoT 2008 p 11). This was written more than two years after the feasibility study in which it was clear that the marina was inland. Subsequently the location of the marina in the mind of both decision-makers in the WAPC and the public has become clouded.
The WAPC rezoning also incredibly refers to land in Mangles Bay. This error has come most likely from the change of name of the project at the time when the private-public partnership began. Prior to that the project was accurately called Cape Peron Marina Based Tourist Precinct, although the earlier iteration was called Mangles Bay Marina but that version was actually in sea in Mangles Bay. With the advent of Cedar Woods marketing it became the Mangles Bay Marina project.
This may appear to be a trivial issue but in the context of this amendment 1280/41 it is important. This is a legal document and the public has been invited to partake in a process that should be as clear, precise and transparent as possible.
There is anecdotal evidence that much of the public has also been understandably confused or misled. Many people when shown the scale model of Cape Peron are shocked to discover that, except for the entrance, the marina is not in Mangles Bay at all. They are also shocked to see how much of the Cape would be taken for reading and for the development together.
Outcome from WAPC
• The WAPC should require its amendment to be corrected forthwith and re-advertised at the proponents’ expense. • As part of the process of re-considering and re-advertising the amendment, the WAPC should require the labelling of the project to be changed to reflect the reality. • The WAPC should require the proponents to advertise the correction to the public through the channels used by the proponents.
Lack of Information Necessary to Comment
The amendment calls for comment from the public on the following activities: Urban: areas in which a range of activities are undertaken including residential, commercial, recreational and light industry.
It is impossible for the public to comment meaningfully on this amendment to rezone as Urban because the public has no reliable, independent information regarding the “residential, commercial, recreational” activities proposed. Presumably some of this is contained in the Local Structure Plan but, although the plan is with Council officers, both Councillors and the public have been denied access to it. This inherently defective and unfair process should be changed by the WAPC if it is sincere about encouraging meaningful public engagement with proposals. The phrase ‘a pig in a poke’ comes to mind as an appropriate characterisation of this process to date.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The WAPC should reschedule the comment process until after the release of the Local Structure Plan allowing the public at least three months to study it and comment meaningfully.
Inaccurate Descriptions of Location
“The land is located on the Rockingham foreshore, is approximately 3.2 km west of the Rockingham strategic metropolitan centre.”
This statement is inaccurate and confusing. In fact, the eastern edge of the project area is 1.8 km due west of Railway Terrace which is the centre of the Rockingham foreshore complex. The term Rockingham foreshore refers to the foreshore between Hymus Street and Wanliss Street. The land in question is approximately 3 km west north west of the Rockingham City Shopping Centre. Also, the largest part of the land by far is located within Cape Peron, not on the Rockingham foreshore.
The proposed amendment area includes recreational based uses such as the Returned Services League, Mangles Bay Fishing Club and The Cruising Yacht Club of WA. The Crippled Children’s Seaside Home Society is also located within the subject land.
This description is inaccurate and incomplete. The amendment area includes the City of Perth RSL Caravan Park, the Rockingham RSL Club rooms, part of the Rockingham RSL lease and the Aviation Industry Workers Campsite.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The WAPC should ensure that the land is described properly in order to ensure that the rezoning is not to be subjected to legal challenge in possibly trivial grounds or as part of criticism of the whole project as a misleading venture inaccurately promoted and presented.
Scope and Content Described Wrongly
The total area subject of this amendment is approximately as follows: Urban zone: 52.89 ha, Urban Deferred zone: 1.35 ha, Parks and Recreation reservation: 3.53 ha, ORRs reservation: 4.41 ha, Bush Forever removal: 43.16 ha. The total area the subject of this amendment is approximately: 105.34 ha.
However, the PER gives the total project area as 77 ha. The total given above of 105.34 ha appears to include both the Urban zone and the Bush Forever removal twice.
Outcome from WAPC:
• This section should be corrected along with other information requested elsewhere and the amendment reissued for public comment along with the LSP and the Mangles Bay Economic Study and the other studies requested elsewhere.
Invalid Economic Purpose: Commercial Uses, Cafes, Restaurant Etc.
There are questions regarding the validity of the purpose to provide "... tourist based commercial uses, cafes, restaurant etc.” These questions relate to the need for such uses and the future financial viability of the proposal.
The foreshore and hinterland is already very well serviced by commercial uses, cafes and restaurants. The proposed village is 1.8 km away from the Rockingham Waterfront Village with over 20 restaurants and cafes. That area has had long periods of financial difficulties with many properties remaining vacant, closed or undeveloped for many years. It is due for a planned $40 million upgrade which is expected to revitalise it. However, the proponents have so far failed to present any evidence that a similar node only 1.8 km away would not draw custom and would not render both sites commercially unviable.
As well the proposed Mangles Bay Marina village is less than two kilometres away from 21 shops and 12 cafes/restaurants at the Shoalwater shopping centre, the Anchorage shopping centre at Hawker Street and the Penguin Road shopping centre. The Shoalwater Shopping Centre has recently undergone a major refit and expansion. Neither the local council nor the proponents has conducted any surveys of these existing local businesses or sought opinions from owners. It’s worth noting that at least three of the restaurants have struggled and changed hands or closed over the past two years.
The only purported study of the economic prospects is the Mangles Bay Economic Study funded by the proponents some two years ago. It was presented in some form to the Rockingham Kwinana Chamber of Commerce and then leaked to the media with headlines celebrating $1.3 billion of benefits to Rockingham. However, the Study was not shown to the Council officers or Councillors and attempts to obtain access to it were blocked on grounds of commercial in confidence.
How valid this reason has not been tested: there are no competitors for this private-public partnership.
As a result, the public and the Councillors have to date been unable to understand what the benefits and costs of the project would be to the City. Council officers apparently do know but are unable to release or comment on that information. Consequently, attempts to comment on the economic aspects of this amendment are futile. The situation is foolish. Surely the WAPC does not expect the community to gullibly accept the claims of the proponent sight unseen.
Outcome from WAPC
• The WAPC should require the proponent to release the Mangles Bay Economic Study and re-open the comment period so that the public, Council and economists can have time to understand make valid comments on the economic aspects of the rezoning. • The WAPC should require an independent evaluation of the economic opportunities currently available on the Rockingham foreshore and the three other shopping centres and a survey of business owners there on their attitudes to having another similar hub within two kilometres.
Purpose: Marina and Flawed Process
The initial impetus for the first iteration of this proposal was for a marina to ensure better protection and facilities for the craft moored in Mangles Bay. The 1995 proposal involved a marina within Mangles Bay. This was ruled out by the ERA for environmental reasons to do with seagrass. Subsequently the purpose of the development has changed as proponents have become attracted by the crown land within Cape Peron without the need to construct a marina.
There is good reason to believe that now the main motivation of both proponents is the ability to sell off at a premium the crown land of Cape Peron (PER page 24). In other words the primary purpose may have become a housing development with a marina as a cover to gain public acceptance. There is little doubt that both Councillors and the public would vociferously refuse to support a housing development without a marina.
The view that the underlying purpose of the development has changed, has gained credence recently with the publication in local papers by the proponents of the first stage of construction (Weekend Courier 24 July 2015). Omitted is the first stage from the PER (page 27) in which the Marina was to be begun in the first 18 months of the development schedule of construction.
Further credence has been given by the second advertisement and questions have been asked of the proponents (my letter). Clearly the marina and canals are both the most costly and risky parts of the project and it is understandable that a developer for financial reasons would prefer to construct a simple housing development near the sea.
A verbal comment by one of the proponents to a member of the public to the effect that the marina might not be built for at least three years or even never fuelled doubts about the apparent purpose of this project.
The most recent statement on this issue has been from Cedar Woods to the effect that they would provide a bank guarantee sought by the City of Rockingham to ensure the company’s commitment to seeing construction of the marina through. (The wording avoids mention of the canals which raises another problem.) However, they said that the guarantee would be provided “before titles to stages one and two were drawn up.” Stages one and two involve land clearing and bulldozing of approximately 16 ha of the eastern portion of the project area from Hymus/Safety Bay Road.
Outcome from WAPC:
• Valid comment on the amendment has been impossible because the public and the Councillors (and possibly Council officers) do not have access to the complete new indicative schedule of construction in which apparently the marina has been delayed. • Any bank guarantee to cover the cost of constructing the marina and canals should be lodged with the City of Rockingham before any land clearing at all takes place, not after land clearing. • The WAPC should require the proponent to make an advance payment to the City of Rockingham of a sum sufficient to enable the restoration of the Bush Forever site before any land is cleared.
Invalid Purpose: Short Stay Accommodation
“Other purposes of the proposal are to provide ... Short stay and permanent residential uses;”
In relation to short stay accommodation this purpose is misleading and inaccurate.
First, the Cape Peron area already has six leaseholds providing short stay residences (limited by regulation). Admittedly these are ageing, contain asbestos and are not accessible to all the public and certainly not attractive to many tourists. However, they could be renovated as has been done on Rottnest Island and offered to the public on a new commercial basis.
Second, the proposal would completely eliminate far more than what is presently available. Two of these leaseholds - the City of Perth RSL Caravan Park which offers 62 residences and the AIW site which offers 52 residences - would be completely lost. As well the leaseholds west of Memorial Drive will lose 20 metres of frontage from their leases, a total of over 1 ha. This results in a loss of approximately 3 ha of existing but poor quality low cost accommodation in return for 1.6 ha of short stay accommodation that would have to be funded and built outside of the Mangles Bay Marina project and may never be built.
Third, even if urban zoning is obtained, there is no commitment by the proponents to fund and construct any short stay accommodation, only to provide land for it. If as the proponent claims, public infrastructure is to be funded from early sales of blocks, there is no indication of what would happen if early sales do not eventuate or if the funding for the project falls short for any reason. If it is proposed to sell the land for short stay accommodation to another party, the cost to that party would increase dramatically, further reducing the likelihood of getting any short stay accommodation. Any commercial concern would be unlikely to want to buy in given the length of time required for construction of the marina and canals during which considerable amounts would be devoted to pile driving, dredging and trucking of spoil.
Fourth, there is one further shadow over the short stay accommodation. The land proposed for “eco-friendly (sic) Chalet Facility for Family affordable Accommodation” (notionally 1.6 ha in the PER page 23) is partly within the 500 metre odour buffer around the Point Peron Waste Water Treatment Plant. The difficulties raised by this were not acknowledged in the PER and, if the experience with Point Peron is any guide, are formidable. It is obvious that at least half of the area so allotted is not going to be suitable for any housing until at least 2025, due to the continued operation of the WWTP.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The rezoning amendment to urban should not be approved on the ground that, far from achieving the stated purpose, it will actually reduce the supply of short stay accommodation on Cape Peron. • The WAPC needs to clarify with the public before we can make a valid comment, whether a) if the land for Low Cost Family Affordable Accommodation is not rezoned urban, will the proponents reduce the area for low cost accommodation, and if so, will the WAPC require the proponent to increase the area to compensate? • If the WAPC does decide to approve the rezoning but before it is approved, the proponent should be required to demonstrate to the WAPC and for public comment. • Affordable housing is a priority in the WAPC high level strategic planning documents; the Mangles Bay Marina should be required to conform to the priorities in 3.5 Million Perth and Peel, 2031 and 2050.
Invalid Purpose: Loss of Amenity in Open Space and foreshore Areas
“Other purposes of the proposal are to provide ... Open space and foreshore areas.”
This purpose is patently false: it should read “reduce open space and foreshore areas”. At present the public are able to freely access the open space and all of the Bush Forever site (42 ha) and some of the foreshore and almost all of the beach between Hymus Street and the Causeway.
Every day of the year one can observe the public using the Bush Forever site and the beach in the following ways: walking, walking dogs, jogging through the bush, riding road and off- road bikes, sun baking, practising golf.
If the proposal goes ahead the public will lose most of the Bush Forever site to private housing retaining only some road and walkways. The public will lose at least 500 metres of a 1,100 metre beach to rock walls, groynes and the marina entrance. As well the ability to walk from one end of the beach to the other will completely be lost.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The rezoning amendment to urban should be rejected on the ground that it will actually reduce the public open space and beach access from what is currently available to the public resulting in considerable loss of amenity that is unacceptable to the public.
Failure to Ensure Sustainability: Roading
Under the Planning and Development Act 2005 a key purpose of planning is to “promote the sustainable use and development of land in the State”.
While the environmental assessment processes have run their courses and resulted in the Minister’s conditional approval, questions still remain about sustainability given the multiple risks the project faces. It is clear that some of the reading proposal would involve the need to reconsider both Ministers’ of Environments conditions.
One set of questions relevant to this rezoning arises from proposals for reading. First the issue of the location of the ORR also called the Garden Island Highway has not been resolved and has not been dealt with in this amendment. In the 3.5 million Perth and Peel Strategic Planning document this road is shown as an ‘existing road’ cutting through the remnant of the Bush Forever site 355. The area required for a 29 metre road reserve through that site would be at least 2 ha. The implications of this for the 20 ha of rehabilitation required as a condition were not considered in the PER nor were they included in the Minister’s conditions: dissection of areas of remnant bush is opposed to the principle of sustainable biodiversity and jeopardises the little that is left of Bush Forever 355. Second, the issue of the route of the ORR along the southern edge of Lake Richmond has been considered by neither the Federal nor State Minister. Given the detailed process of risk analysis that was conducted in relation to the water quality and level in Lake Richmond, it would be a major change to the Marina if this road was to be constructed. Far from being considered separately and sometime in the future as Council suggest in their submission, this should require immediate reassessment by the Federal Minister under the EPBC Act.
Third, this issue of the ORR has been ambiguously referred to in the amendment and it appears that this is an example of approval by stealth.
The community should not be expected to approve an amendment that contains phrases like “it is likely”, “in the long-term, this local road connection may be closed,” “this ORR reservation will need to be reviewed,”
Outcome from WAPC:
• The planning and MRS amendment process should be considered as part of this amendment 1280/41, not as a separate process. The WAPC should not make itself open to claims of jeopardising remnant bush by stealth or pre-emption. • Any amendment process for this road should be considered as a major amendment, subject to public comment and referred for assessment under the EPBC Act in relation to Lake Richmond. • If the “remainder of Memorial Drive is a local road”, it would appear that this would not have a 29 metre road reserve with four lanes, and not be what HMAS Stirling have demanded. This amendment should be re-advertised with a resolution of this issue. • This amendment should be readvertised with clarification of the exact route of the “east-west link between Safety Bay Road and Rae Street” to specify whether or not the ORR will traverse the southern edge of Lake Richmond and link up with the rest of the Garden Island Highway up to Rae Road. Failure to do this would significantly disadvantage residents of Richmond Drive and the streets south west of there through the Anchorage. • The change in this foreshadowed re-alignment should be referred to the Federal Department of Environment under the EPBC Act for its assessment of sustainability impact on Lake Richmond before further consideration of the rezoning.
Traffic Impact Assessment
The DoT has also advised that a detailed traffic impact assessment be undertaken for the proposed development. The proponent has agreed to consult with the DoT and address their requirements as part of the above process, which is to be finalised before the amendment is considered by the WAPC for a final determination.
It is observed that even with the present lower rates of vehicle movement, roads to and from the Stirling Base are under pressure during rush hours while at other times of day they are lightly used. Daily counts are unlikely to give a true picture of road usage.
More significantly this discussion and that in the PER are both inadequate as an account of the needs for reading with the qualification that appropriate measures will be implemented during the LSP preparation. The PER gives figures for Naval Base traffic, for construction traffic, for operational traffic and combined traffic peaks. There is no mention of the impact of the impacts of peak movements when a naval fleet is in port, nor of the proposed DHA Palm Beach Caravan Park Redevelopment, nor of the existing traffic to the natural features down at Point Peron. Recent evidence has come to hand of vehicle movements to the Point. DPaW’s traffic counter records a monthly average of 50,000 vehicle movements westward or possibly 1,600 vehicle movements per day on average. Breakdown of the figures in terms of time and day of the week is not available to me. But the claim of 1,100 vph westbound is completely inadequate in that it takes no account of the three additional sources of movement. Updating figures from the PER for 2018 we are likely to see daily vehicle movements westward, is approximately 13,400.
These figures are admittedly from an amateur, but they are sufficiently large in scale to raise concerns for the WAPC to ensure that serious effort needs to be given to traffic before any rezoning is approved. It could be argued that traffic is one sufficient reason why the rezoning should not be approved.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The detailed traffic modelling should be based on current actual traffic counts and using the most up-do-date forecasts of traffic to both Stirling Base, for times when naval fleets are in, for normal tourist traffic to the Point and for construction/operation of the MBM. • Traffic counts should be taken to enable accurate counts during rush hours rather than total daily traffic movements.
Failure to Ensure Sustainability: Monitoring of Lake Richmond
While this is primarily an environmental issue, I argue that it should be considered by the WAPC here because it has economic aspects. If Lake Richmond fails to meet the criteria set by the Federal Minister for Environment, the project may have to be suspended and delayed, or at least cost more.
The issue of who will be responsible for any exceedance of criteria will involve the MBM proponent, the DHA contractor and the WAPC if the Garden Island Highway is constructed simultaneously. This could lead to litigation if one proponent blames the other and/or one proponent claims compensation.
Although a number of environmental conditions have been imposed on the proponents in relation to the water quality and level of Lake Richmond, the issue remains of who is suitable to conduct the monitoring of these conditions.
Cumulative impacts of DHA, GIH and MBM have been ignored. The difference between the Federal Government’s EPBC Act decision regarding the MBM and its decision regarding the DHA remains a striking contradiction: while with the MBM the Minister imposed 14 conditions as part of a controlled action, he imposed no conditions on the DHA as an uncontrolled action. This contradiction is incredible in relation to this Lake with its two TEC, one of which, the Thrombolites, is now known to be the only example in the world of this particular community of Microbialites.
It is difficult to find scientists who have records of independence of developers with the result that modelling and monitoring are neither transparent nor objective. Since this is a Government project, one can imagine that any consulting business which wants to be around in future and pick up significant contracts is unlikely to produce findings that delay or compromise the project.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The monitoring of the water quality and levels of Lake Richmond should be put in the hands of consultants who have demonstrated independence of involvement with the proponents. • Cumulative impacts of the three potential projects, MBM, DHA and GIH should be referred by the WAPC for assessment by both the WA EPA and the Federal Department under the EPBC Act. To fail to do so would make a mockery of claims of sustainability.
Failure to Ensure Sustainability: Seagrass
I would not have mentioned this as it does not relate to land, however, it is mentioned in the amendment. Claims by the proponent that rehabilitation of seagrass in Cockburn Sounds has been ‘proven successful’ are inaccurate. At best seagrass rehabilitation can only be claimed a work in progress subject to unquantifiable risks. The issues that arise are:
• The stochastic nature of seagrass rehabilitation - one single storm event can wipe out a whole rehabilitation project; (Prof Gary Kendrick quoted in Science Network WA 27 May 2013 Researchers sow seeds of seagrass transplant success). • Unexplained failure of rehabilitation in part of the project used by the proponent as evidence of success. • Unexplained natural regeneration of seagrass outside of the trial quadrats in the rehabilitation project. • The requirement that the offset for seagrass to replace the seagrass community lost through dredging (2 ha for 1) to be monitored in terms of shoot density lacks any reference to the epiphytic communities supported by seagrass and which are essential for supporting fish nurseries (the word ‘community’ was removed during the appeal process weakening the condition). Even though the condition requires the proponent to continue rehabilitation until the offset has been met, given the above issues, this must be considered a highly risky condition. • The costs of the current project have been estimated at $1 million per hectare and it’s not clear whether this included the planting of 3 ha or the cost of the approximately 2 ha which showed success. • Concerns have recently been raised by the Fisheries Industries Council regarding loss of nursery habitat in seagrass within Cockburn Sound (Sound Telegraph 21 October 2015). For example, even though crab fishing has been closed for 18 months, numbers of crabs have not increased. The reasons are not known. This week, news has come of an impending rise in sea temperature in Shark Bay worse than the previous record rise in 2011 which killed off much of the seagrass there. • Further concern about the CO2 storage role of seagrass.
Outcome from WAPC:
• Because the environmental condition regarding seagrass has economic implications for the viability of the project, the WAPC should require the proponents to provide a bank guarantee of at least $11 million to cover the replanting of 10.5 ha before beginning dredging in Mangles Bay.
Doubt Regarding Availability of 56 ha of Bush Offset
Outcome from WAPC:
• Before any land clearing takes place, the WAPC should require the proponents to locate the 56 ha of coastal bush and ensure that it is independently assessed as suitable to replace what will be lost at Cape Peron, before it is purchased. Specifically, the offset should be in one place, have appropriate species, appropriate climate and distance from the sea and sufficient integrity to enable rehabilitation if parts are degraded.
Issues with Marina Manager
The Department of Defence has required the following condition for its support of initiation of the amendment: “Develop procedures for the marina manager to inform boat owners of the responsibility to maintain an exclusion zone around HMAS Stirling”.
The WAPC DC 1.8 requires “the proponent to enter into a draft deed of agreement with the local government concerning future waterways management. The deed will need to state the waterways manager and be endorsed by all affected parties prior to the amendment being finalised”.
However, the City voted not to become the manager of the marina due to concerns over risks of costs arising from maintenance issues including siltation of the channel and eutrophication of canals. Currently the City has written again to the proponents seeking clarification on this issue.
The wording of the DoD requirement is somewhat vague in that it states “develop procedures for the marina manager...’’. While procedures might be developed, they would mean nothing unless they were developed in consultation with a marina manager. The wording of the DC 1.8 is also somewhat vague in that it only requires “the proponent to enter into a draft deed of agreement with the local government”.
Outcome from WAPC:
• Marina management procedures should be developed as part of the deed of agreement in consultation with the approved contracted manager not with some proxy proposed by the proponents. • A marina manager should be acceptable to all the agencies involved with aspects of any potential marina - Council of the City of Rockingham, DPaW, Cockburn Sound Management Council and the Departments of Transport and Defence. • There needs to be certainty before the WAPC amendment is determined that somebody will commit to regulating and managing the marina and canals with all that entails - boating, moorings, hardstand, water quality in marina and canals, launching ramps, private jetties, dredging, navigation lighting, refuelling and chandlery, aquatic club facilities, maintenance of walls and pens, etc. and that this body is demonstrably capable of doing so. • The deed of agreement should include details of payments to cover anticipated costs as well as arrangements like bank guarantees to cover risks including siltation, eutrophication and insurances well into the future following handover of the facility.
Issues with Aboriginal Heritage
To assert that “proposed changes to land-use ... do not physically interfere with the land” in the context of the MBM and Aboriginal Heritage is wrong and even inflammatory given the sensitivity of indigenous relationships with country. Bulldozing for housing and roads and excavation for marinas and canals does physically interfere with the land. What ‘protection’ can be provided is difficult to envisage with a development like this.
The indigenous conception of the Cape is not only one of a few ‘sacred sites’ but also one of an integrated swathe of country. The image expressed by local Elder Trevor Walley is of the local totem of the Sand Whiting in which the head of the fish is represented by Lake Richmond, the belly by the Bush Forever site 355, and the tail Point Peron and John Point.
There is doubt that the SWALSC is actually the correct body. For one thing it was set up to advise on native title as part of the Government’s negotiations with South West Aborigines. For another there is doubt as to the qualifications of the consultant group that was asked to advise on heritage sites at Cape Peron. Third, the SWALSC was set up by government: in other words it is not independent of government and therefore has a conflict of interest when being asked to advise on the MBM, which is also a government project.
Questions to SWALSC have so far failed to elicit the names of those who they consulted so that it may be demonstrated that they were the appropriate persons. As of the date of publishing the amendment, the SWALSC had not actually come up with any advice to the WAPC.
Finally, there are concerns that many sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act are in the process of being unilaterally deregistered. Do these sites include those listed in the PER. If they have been delisted, why was this decision made?
Outcome from WAPC:
• The WAPC should obtain clarity about the appropriateness of having SWALSC rule on the MBM sites and should ensure that only the appropriately qualified elders provide advice. • The WAPC should demonstrate to the public that there is no conflict of interest in having a government appointed and government dependent body (SWALSC) consult on the project of LandCorp, a government agency. • If any of the heritage sites within or in the vicinity of the MBM project site are or have been deregistered, the WAPC should publish the reasons for that action.
Economic Sustainability: Lack of Information Regarding Jobs
“The proposed amendment seeks to create a tourist marina precinct within the Mangles Bay locality to facilitate recreational activities, activation of the beachfront and provision of passive/active public open space. Retail/Commercial development will contribute to the creation of employment opportunities for the Mangles Bay locality in accordance with sustainable environment, social and economic outcomes.”
One danger in writing proposals for projects or rezoning’s is that the writers tend to come to believe their own statements will be realised. This paragraph is one example. It begins “The proposed amendment seeks to create...” but in the second sentence the words have changed to “Retail/Commercial development will contribute to the creation of employment opportunities...” instead of the more accurate and honest “is believed or hoped or expected or seeks to...” Again, without having access to the Mangles Bay Economic study, it is impossible for the public to assess the meaning of such claims and therefore such claims of beneficial economic outcomes are not credible and should not be offered to the public as if they were. It could be argued that the WAPC writers have been so influenced by the propaganda of the proponents that they have come to believe it too.
Outcome from WAPC:
• In order to maintain credibility of the process and public confidence in the transparency of its processes, the WAPC should withdraw MRS amendment 1280/41 until such time as the Mangles Bay Economic Study and the Local Structure Plan has been released and then re-issue it after calling for proper analysis and response. • The WAPC should require the Mangles Bay Economic Study to be analysed by an independent body before approving the rezoning.
Sustainability: House Insurance
Before this project was proposed there has been concern amongst the insurance industry regarding the provision of policies to cover flooding and storm surge in certain localities vulnerable to sea level rise. Some companies have advised residents of Shoalwater that flooding is an exclusion. Given that the hierarchy for coastal adaptation begins with ‘Avoid” and is based on a “no regrets” policy, SPP 2.6) and that there are predictions of 0.9 m rise in sea level locally by 2110, how likely is it that insurance companies will be willing to insure properties in this area or alongside these canals or the marina? What research has the proponent done into this issue?
Work by the Peron Naturalist Partnership and the Cockburn Sound Coastal Adaptation group of councils shows clearly that much of the area is vulnerable to inundation and storm surge.
The current proposal by the proponents of 20 metre setback is manifestly inadequate, arrogantly so perhaps, suggesting that the proponents have not read the reports of the above groups. Whether a nominal 162 metres would be adequate given the above scenario is another question.
A further question concerns the wisdom if deliberately creating two breaches in the existing coastal dune system in the circumstance of 0.9 m sea level rise. One breach is the marina and canals itself. The other is the proposed stormwater pipe from Lake Richmond along Safety Bay Road, Hymus Street and then west along the beach front.
Outcome from WAPC
• Before approving this rezoning, the WAPC should require assurances from the insurance industry that housing and facility insurance will be available into the foreseeable future before approving the rezoning. • In order to ensure that approval for rezoning does not place the coast in any further danger, the WAPC should ensure that the work of the PNP and CSCA are taken into consideration properly. It is a concern that the submission by City of Rockingham fails to do this explicitly.
Community Consultation
The consultation process for the development of a concept plan included approximately 800 community members from a range of stakeholder groups. The consultation included public forums, establishment of a Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG), public advertising, project website, information hotline and various individual stakeholder meetings including Aboriginal representatives.
Stakeholder Reference Group: SRG meetings were undertaken to provide input into the concept planning to commence the PER process. Stakeholders were from the general community and local interest groups. In spite of the claims by the proponents to have conducted a consultation process, questions remain as to both its validity and the results.
During the feasibility meetings one group of people walked out because they felt that the proceedings were being manipulated to produce outcomes favourable to the then proponents. I did not walk about but noted that opinions from some sections of the meeting were either ignored or watered down.
Subsequently Stakeholders meetings with Cedar Woods produced what they called minutes. Again, opinions opposing the company’s outcomes were omitted. I protested and was told that the papers were not really minutes but just notes. They were not corrected and no emails followed subsequent meetings.
For ten years the two local papers have both carried correspondence from residents for but largely against the MBM and usually in response to statements by the Mayor of Rockingham or in reaction to advertisements by Cedar Woods and LandCorp. This correspondence has been the longest single process in the history of both papers. Currently it is clear that far from the ‘usual suspects’ writing, more and more people are expressing their concerns.
With council elections under way the WAPC will be interested to learn that of 23 City of Rockingham candidates polled by a local newspaper, 17 have come out and said that they oppose the MBM. Only four said they were in favour of the MBM while two did not respond (Sound Telegraphs 30 Sept and 7 October). Results of the council elections on 19 October were as follows: 88% of voters voted for candidates who said that they opposed the MBM.
Three new candidates were elected who all said they were opposed to the MBM. One candidate who has been a staunch advocate for the MBM scraped in with 41 vote majority. Voting levels in Rockingham (25%) were on a par with all other metro cities except the City of Perth so the lack of pro-marina candidates (bemoaned by the President of the local Chamber of Commerce) was not a cause of the lower than usual vote in Rockingham.
Outcome from WAPC:
• The WAPC should refuse to take on face value the assertions of the proponents that there has been a valid community consultation process. Instead it should take into account the strength of community opposition expressed over ten years by refusing to approve this rezoning. The Port Rockingham marina should be proposed instead and the proponents told to provide support to revive it. • If the WAPC will not refuse to approve the rezoning, it should take into account the myriad of objections that will have been made by both ordinary members of the community appalled at the proposal and professionals with expertise in a range of areas relevant to planning by implementing the range of changes in this and other submissions.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 193
Submitted by: Wendy Thompson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as canal encourage mosquitos which carry virus which will impact people. The Little Penguins will be affected due to dredging and removal of seagrasses. The site is a tourist attraction which should be preserved.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 194, 195
Submitted by: Christine Worth, David Alan Worth (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should remain a parkland for future generations. • Anything the proponents say cannot be substantiated. • The additional boats will affect the water quality and marine life of the locality. • Flora and fauna will be affected, and Lake Richmond will be subject to salination. • What is affordable accommodation and who will do this? • Conformity issues will arise. • It is a risk for Stirling naval base and the American navy. • No known height restrictions. • There are better alternative sites for a marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 196
Submitted by: Laura Munut (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron was given to the people of WA in 1964 by the Commonwealth, to be used for recreation/conservation purposes, not a marina. • Point Peron is a recreational place used for all persons for a number of years, which should be protected as a coastal park for future. • The site offers health benefits and will impact the penguins.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 197
Submitted by: Demi Betts (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The canal development will destroy the environment, rather than protecting it. • There needs to be more measures in place to control government and peoples’ lifestyle. • The proposal will affect the environment and native wildlife. • Tourism is part of every society which should not be compromised.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 198
Submitted by: James Brierley (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the penguin population will be further affected. Tourism will not support a marina. A coastal park should be supported as it is not affecting the environment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 199
Submitted by: Tiffany Brunswick (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for many recreational uses and should remain for future generations. The site offers health benefits which should be retained. • The tourism of the site will be enhanced by a coastal park or destroyed by the marina. • The proposal will impact on the environment and the Little Penguins and Lake Richmond Thrombolites. • The negative effects of the marina will be felt in future for years and should be supported.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 200
Submitted by: Christine Cascius (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the penguin population will be affected and there will be environmental impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 201
Submitted by: Sarah Cole (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The site (and southwest) contains many unique ecosystems which should be protected for future generations. • The City of Rockingham will be remembered for destroying the environment, use of public land, misrepresenting people. • The site has many historical memories for people which should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 202
Submitted by: Joyce Mills (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The site is not in Mangles Bay and will create traffic issues. • The site contains bushland which should be retained for tourists etc. • The site will be a mosquito problem caused for the tidal movement. • Cape Peron is a fragile area that needs management. • Seagrasses are not easily transported and won't rehabilitate. • The Little Penguins will be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 203
Submitted by: Jenny Dubios (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as the site has many historical memories which should be retained for future generations. Tourists like to see nature not canals. A coastal park and farmers market is the best option for the site.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 204
Submitted by: Jenny Fussell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as it will affect seagrasses and penguins. If the penguins can't feed on seagrasses they'll probably die from mercury poisoning. The proposal will only benefit the rich. The site is Bush Forever which should be protected for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 205
Submitted by: Norman Frances Hodgkinson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the amendment, as follows:
Traffic off Site after Completion
The site of the proposed marina is in the north west corner of the town remote from the major access from the east where most of the traffic enters. The alternative marina site is Wanliss Street which is east of the city at the main town access and on the end of a big street.
The project is one of at least three major developments proposed for the area. It is understood that a study of the traffic which would result from the completion of the marina is to be done during this phase of the project. I think this is not in the public interest as it does not allow consideration of the conclusions of the study by the public before the closing date for submissions.
The proposal is to close Point Peron Road leaving a relocated Memorial Drive for the traffic from the Causeway and beyond. Recent observations of the traffic at between 2pm and 3pm on a week day noted that 3 out of every 4 vehicles from the Cape used Point Peron Road rather than Memorial Drive. That is, the majority of drivers did not want to go south.
It is evident that the extension of Garden Island Highway to the Causeway is not a solution to the traffic problems which will arise from the project. At the junction of Point Peron Road and Hymus Street roughly 3 out of 4 vehicles turned north to the Esplanade or east into Parkin Street. Most of the traffic was not going south.
At the junction with Hymus Street the Point Peron traffic enters at a point where it avoids the traffic on Safety Bay Road going north to Parkin Street, so the delay is reduced. The queue in Point Peron Road to get onto Hymus Street was up to 14 cars at the peak.
The idea of cutting off Point Peron Road leaving only Memorial Drive for the Cape Peron traffic means that east bound vehicles will have to merge with all the traffic on Safety Bay Road going north to Parkin Street and Esplanade. The car queues from the Cape Peron will be much longer. The observations above can form the basis of considerations of what will happen in future.
However, the traffic study should take into account the increased traffic from:
• The marina which would generate a big number of trips a day. • The expansion of the Naval Base. • The development of the Palm Beach Caravan Park.
The increase in traffic from the caravan park estate alone is estimated to be about 4000 trips a day. A third of this is expected to be by naval families living on the estate. This will result in a major traffic flow onto Safety Bay Road from Memorial Drive at a bad location.
As noted above, an extension of Garden Island Highway will hardly help at all. The drivers want to go east. The value of Rae Road was negated when the railway came to occupy the route from Ennis Avenue to Mandurah Road.
Lake Richmond Overflow Drain
Lake Richmond used to fill in winter and flood Safety Bay Road, Lake Street the Anchorage even before the Rockingham drain from the eastern suburbs to the lake was excavated. In fact the whole area was open to duck shooting in season. The overflow drain was excavated to limit the lake level to 1.2 m AHD. It runs from the north west corner under Safety Bay Road to the sea between the Fishing Boat Club and the Cruising Yacht Club sites on Mangles Bay. The drain would have to be relocated if the project goes ahead.
The proponent's documents envisage that it would run north along Safety Bay Road and Hymus Street to Palm Beach and then along the beach to the marina entry. This is a distance of about 1.1 km. At present there are two 1.5 m diameter overflow pipes under Safety Bay Road through which the water flows by gravity. I have seen the water flow to 30 cm of the top of these pipes in the last 10 years and we have not had exceptional rainfalls. The water then runs in an open channel to the sea.
The lake level is to be maintained at 1.2 m. In August this year the high tide ranged up 1.17 m. To limit back flow up to the lake there are non-return flaps on the pipes under Point Peron Road. However, I understand that there are some sea water fish in Lake Richmond. The low tide in August was generally around 0.6 m AHD. Allowing flow by gravity to the sea with a fall of only 0.7 m the pipes will have to be very large for the required flow rate.
The design must allow for a 1 in 100 year rainfall which has not occurred since the Anchorage was developed. The last major rainfall was in 1987 when 95 mm was recorded in a day. The planning regulations require that coastal developments must take account of a 0.9 m rise in sea levels due to Global Warming. This means that the sea level at low tide will be 1.4 m AHD exceeding the maximum permissible level of Lake Richmond. It will therefore have to be pumped to the sea.
Who will pay for the pump station? Who will pay for the electricity consumed by the pump motors? If the marina is not approved, these problems will not arise. The Peron Naturalist Partnership have studied the problem of rising sea levels. The report by ACIL TASMAN stated that for the Port Mandurah Estate the least expensive option would be to put flood gates across the mouth of the estate. This could be applied to the Mangles Bay Marina.
Marina Flushing
The Statement of Cockburn Sound Report 2014 by the Cockburn Sound Management Council states that the condition of the sea at Mangles Bay is at a critical level for nutrient enrichment for seagrass. The environmental report by the EPA states that the study for the proponents concludes that the marina will be adequately flushed and the pollution added to the sea at the outlet will not add to the pollution levels in the sea.
If the pollution in the sea is critical now, it would be more critical if the marina flushes into it. No study can conclude otherwise. Also, on a typical summers day the weather pattern is for light south easterly winds in the morning and south westerly winds in the afternoon. To the west of the causeway the sea remains relatively calm all day. There is no onshore wind or agitation in the sea to assist flow of water into the marina.
The tides in summer only range over 0.5 m from low to high tide. The range of flows into and out of the marina would be minimal at the time of the year when there would be the most activity in the marina to cause pollution. The flushing of the marina would not be satisfactory and it would cause deterioration in the seagrass around the outlet.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 206
Submitted by: Melanie Jones (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as it will destroy 43 ha of Bush Forever land which should be protected for future generations. The proposal will privatise public land which is not supported.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 207
Submitted by: Didier Monot (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• Rockingham has the best beaches in Perth and has been used for past recreational and educational uses. • The site is for all to use not just for an exclusive few. • The Mandurah marina is not a successful example and has many issues.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 208
Submitted by: Robert M Pemberton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is opposed as the site has been used for a variety of recreation uses which should be retained for future generations to enjoy. The site has health and wellbeing benefits. Overseas residents enjoy the existing site and should remain accessible to everyone. The canal development will affect the environment and should remain Bush Forever.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 209
Submitted by: Rachel Phillips (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the development of Cape Peron and Bush Forever site into anything other than a coastal park is not supported. The proposal for the Mangles Bay Marina is morally, ethically and environmentally wrong. I state my reasons/reasoning for my objection below.
In your call for public submissions you state - the amendment seeks to rationalise various zones and reserves and Bush Forever site 355 to facilitate the development of a tourist based marina. You make no mention of the canal housing development that is planned and in realty it is the only reason this proposal has been put forward. I believe that neither LandCorp nor Cedar Woods would be proposing the marina development if not for the inclusion of canal housing lots. There are no profits to be made in building a stand-alone marina.
The proposed area for development as you no doubt are aware was given to the people of Western Australian in 1964 by the Commonwealth Government. It was given as a park and recreational area to be held in perpetuity for the people of the state. A caveat stated no private, commercial or industrial use was to be allowed and the document signed by both Sir David Brand (Premier) and Sir Robert Menzies (Prime Minister). How is it then that this proposal has got to this stage? In 1960 the then government showed great foresight in wanting to preserve this unique area on our coast for the people of the state.
There are over two million people in this state; Cape Peron belongs to us all and to all the generations to come. It is stated the proposed marina may cater for 500 boats - 500 families, the proposed canal housing development - 250 lots - 250 families. This makes a total of 750 families who will be able to enjoy Cape Peron fully.
In Mandurah many canal houses are held as holiday homes and sit empty for much of the year. As a boat owner I am aware many boats sit in marinas for months if not years without ever moving. Many boats are used on an infrequent basis. This proposal seems to me to be unjust, unfair and a total waste of a great resource for the benefit of very few.
The marina is touted as a tourist attraction that will also provide jobs. Marinas in themselves do not attract people to an area. There is no public access to any area close to the boats and pontoons are locked. To be a commercially viable tourist precinct the addition of attractions such as AQWA at Hillary's, boutique shopping and restaurants would be necessary. None is planned for this marina. The public is left with no recreational space for the majority of people, a very large carpark, few jobs and coffee shop.
There are many reasons why the proposed marina development should not go ahead apart from the fact that it is public land and a Bush Forever site. There was no consultation with the people of the area or the state before this proposal was put into the planning phases. There is a huge groundswell of opposition to this development within the local community from both public and commercial interests. This opposition has been stated at all phases of the planning approvals process, but no one has seen fit to listen to any of the reasons that have been put forward. Reasons that should have stopped this proposal in its tracks. Significant threats to the environment, to currently profitable, sustainable industries and to tourist attractions. No consideration to the fact that the land belongs to the public (everyone) or for the benefits that would come from the considered development of a coastal park for all. WA's commercial fish industry is warning the development could destroy a crucial fish nursery and crash the Cockburn Sound crab fishery. With more than 5 ha of seagrass expected to be lost. Why is no one taking this into account? There are plans to replant the seagrass, however, it has been shown in previous attempts (by Cockburn Cement) that replanting does not work in the long term. Jobs lost.
The area of seagrass to be destroyed is also a known feeding ground for the Little Penguins of Penguin Island in Shoalwater Bay. The population has been in a dramatic decline and further pressure from reduced food sources and increased boating traffic could put the colony's sustainability in jeopardy. Penguin Island is a huge tourist attraction with many thousands of people visiting in a season. It seems like madness to put this tourist attraction and the jobs it generates at risk.
A further factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that the development even when complete will require constant dredging as it will sit in an area prone to silting. Constant dredging will result in constant removal and dumping of spoil that will generate plumes of fine material. These plumes are carried on the tide and can expand great distances. They obliterate the light and coat anything in their path with fine particles, greatly impeding photosynthesis. It would make the replanting of seagrass successfully almost impossible and could mean a far greater area of seagrass is destroyed.
The covering of the cost of this ongoing dredging has been a source of much comment in our local newspapers. It would seem our council is willing to put up its hand and take on this responsibility. Ratepayers are very concerned that they will experience rate increases that would not be necessary otherwise to pay for a marina they do not want.
We also have a very popular tourist attraction in "Swim with Dolphins". It attracts people from all over Australia and the world. The dolphins are frequently located in the waters surrounding Point Peron. I believe drilling, blasting and pile driving (if the proposal goes ahead) would be taking place for approximately 7 years. The disruption these ongoing activities would cause to the dolphins, their food supply and other marine creatures could once again put the viability of this attraction at risk.
This proposal threatens all of the Lake Richmond Reserve. Lake Richmond is a fresh water lake situated in close proximity to the ocean and very close to the proposed marina development. The reserve supports many biological and social values. It is of social significance and is listed on the Register of Aboriginal sites (DIA) and Australian Heritage Database (DEWHA). There are two nationally listed TECSs within the reserve one is a vegetation community - Sedgelands in Holocene Dune Swales and the other is the Thrombolite community. The reserve forms part of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park (CALM, 2003). Only 15 years ago the reserve was declared a Bush Forever site (WAPC, 2000) which is linked to other Bush Forever sites (355, 358,356,349). Lake Richmond is protected under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 and is also recognised as a Conservation Category Wetland.
Migratory birds which visit the lake are protected by international agreements - JAMBA (signed with Japan, 1974) and CAMBA (signed with China in 1986). These agreements aim to protect migratory birds and their environments. The JAMBA agreement also includes specific inclusions for the protection of threatened birds.
Seven years of drilling, blasting and pile driving in such close proximity to the lake could lead to the cracking of sub strata and to the incursion of seawater into the lake. This would have disastrous consequences for the ecology of this reserve. Monitoring of the lake is proposed by LandCorp and Cedar Woods, however, this does not ensure it that it won't happen and does not rectify the problem if it does. I have not seen any management/rectification plan for a scenario such as this. I believe it would be beyond our capabilities to stop the inflow of salt water once it had commenced and the cost of even trying would be prohibitive. Who would be responsible for rectifying the problem, who would pay? Salt water incursion has occurred into fresh water aquifers during development of other marinas and bores once used to water gardens have become saline and useless. The repercussions for Lake Richmond should not be underestimated.
Cape Peron is a park/recreational area and Bush Forever Site; there should be no change to this zoning. It is a unique coastal area within the Rockingham Shire and it is already enjoyed by many people (locals, interstate and overseas visitors) every day. It is a resource for both the state and shire that is being greatly undervalued by our government, local council and developers alike. As a coastal park Cape Peron holds the potential to attract many more people to the area than the proposed marina/housing development and could rival Kings Park in the future if developed with proper care, respect for the environment and imagination.
The development of Cape Peron as a state coastal park would have many positive outcomes. Coastal recreational areas within Rockingham shire are limited to narrow bands (usually less than 50 m) of grass bordered by roads that are always busy. These areas are well patronised by locals and visitors all year round. During "nice" weather, however, they quickly become overcrowded, space and shade is at a premium. For parents with children who wish to play with balls or to run freely it becomes a less than relaxing experience. In recent years we have seen the loss of areas of grass as car and boat parking has been expanded. Our coastal, dual use paths are also well patronised and again become very overcrowded, very quickly during fine weather.
If Cape Peron was developed as a true coastal park it could provide areas for everyone (locals and visitors) to be able to enjoy and relax in. It would also allow the currently rundown and degraded bush forever site to be rehabilitated and enhanced - a great benefit for everyone including the flora and fauna of the area.
Such a development would create numerous jobs many of which would be ongoing, as they are within Kings Park. There would be no destruction or threat of destruction to the environment only enhancement and therefore enjoyment for many, many people. Parks and green places are recognised as being essential for the mental health and physical wellbeing of adults and children alike.
The current planning in new subdivisions means many homes have little space for a garden and the parks in these developments are pocket sized often included with the drainage features of the area. Children have no real space in which to play. Obesity in our children is on the increase, mental health is declining even in our youngest children. The same picture can be painted for our adults as well.
Parks draw families and people from all walks of life and of all ages. A park provides space for imaginative play and exercise essential in a child's development, space for all to relax and enjoy. The potential for Cape Peron to provide such a space, to improve the mental health and physical wellbeing of all who visit there is immense. That people want to be out in the fresh air, in green places enjoying the environment can be seen in any park, on any day of the week. People want to be able to exercise - walk, run or ride a bike, exercise the dog, swim in the ocean. Please don't allow Cape Peron and our Bush Forever site to be destroyed, turned into just another clone of many recent coastal developments. Give us the opportunity to have a park that we can be proud of as was the intention a very long time ago in 1964 when the initial gift of this area was made to the people of WA.
We have lost many Bush Forever sites due to the planning policies of current Government. It seems we are bulldozing half the state into housing lots. What we are losing we will never be able to replace. The approval of this proposal threatens all undeveloped park/recreational areas and bush forever sites. I believe we hold these areas for the enhancement and prosperity, good health and happiness of our children, grandchildren and all future generations. How will our actions today be viewed by the coming generations? I think we will have to hang our heads in shame that with all the tools available to us we did not manage to do a better job in regard to preserving and even enhancing our environment - whether it is within subdivisions, parks or wild areas. The submission included a number of newspaper articles which have been noted.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 210
Submitted by: Mary Ann Rath (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission advises as follows:
• If the seagrasses are disrupted the Little Penguin will be affected and this will impact on tourism etc. • More green spaces are required for urban areas given health and wellbeing advantages. • People will benefit greater if the area becomes a coastal park also given the site was set aside as Bush Forever. • Rates will increase and there will be ongoing disruption for many years from construction activities. Ratepayers will need to pay for improvements and repairs. • The marine activities will increase boat strikes against the Little Penguin.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 211
Submitted by: Helen Ritter (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• An "A" Class reserve should be declared at Point Peron. The site is best retained for future generations. • All persons have the right to access the site and recreate. • There is the risk of permanent harm the marine habitat. • Future sea level rise will be an issue which needs consideration for the long term. • The site contains memories which should be retained.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 212
Submitted by: Angela Rossen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposal as this land was gifted to the people of Western Australia by the Commonwealth Government in 1964 for use as recreational area, environmental reserve and public open space.
It was a particular condition of the gift that the land could never be rezoned for any other purpose. It is a theft of Bush Forever Regional Parkland. It means that our children, their children and all future generations will have this park forever, don't understand how any administration thinks this could be negotiable.
The site has been used for recreation purposes in the past. The natural values of both the bushland and marine environments make it a prime destination for family visits and to bring international visitors.
These seagrass meadows are the nurseries for many marine species as well as Fairy Penguins. These creatures are threatened by human impacts such as boat strikes and disruption, which will only be exacerbated if this plan goes ahead. Dredging for the canal will be destructive to all marine species and will destroy the algae gardens on the Point Peron reefs. This will impact on all associated marine species, fish, crustaceans, invertebrates, sponges, etc.
A housing development would remove the coastal woodland and spoil the experience of visiting the coast. Don’t want another ugly housing development to get to what is left of our community open space and nature reserve. The development will destroy the natural amenity of Point Peron.
The increased traffic, truck movement, noise and dust during the construction phase will have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of all the native wildlife of the Point Peron. It will destroy its amenity as a place to visit and contemplate nature. Once the animals, birds, insects, reptiles and marsupials are gone it is very hard to get them back. The traffic generated by the housing will continue to impact the natural value and amenity of Point Peron.
How a private entity can cut a canal through a public beach is not supported. All beaches and waterways belong to all Australians not just a few rich individuals. The natural, cultural and heritage value of the beaches, woodlands and near coast marine environments of Point Peron are important to all.
Canal developments have very negative environmental consequences, and taxpayers have had to pay to remediate bad design. It is unthinkable that anyone could want to duplicate that mistake. Canal developments fail because the tides are not sufficiently strong to flush them out, and fill with algae and rotting seaweed nuisance. There will be increased public health risks with mosquito borne diseases, like Ross Rover virus.
The Cape Peron Coastal Park proposal has been researched and costed. It would remediate the woodlands that have been neglected for years and create a world class park with a range of family friendly outdoor, nature based, cultural and heritage recreational possibilities and events. Local communities can build businesses knowing that the natural value of the area for use by all as a tourist destination has been preserved, remediated and value added.
The Port Rockingham marina with 500 boat berths adjacent to the existing cafe strip will provide facilities enough for everyone without destroying the cape for just a few.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 213
Submitted by: Jenny Shaw (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was set aside for recreation/conservation purposes and should be retained. • The site is Bush Forever, and the proposal fails to acknowledge the vast benefits of keeping the site and enhancing it for future generations. • As there are so many stresses on the environment, it is important to retain the site because of its environmental, social and cultural values. • Such projects will cost ratepayers/taxpayers in the long-term.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 214
Submitted by: Cassandra Sturdy (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submitter objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The Point Peron locality has unique flora and fauna which will be affected by the proposed development, which is important for humanity. • The State Government has a vested interest as the development will destroy Bush Forever and part of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. • The site is part of an agreement where it would be used for recreational/conservation uses. • The community vision for a coastal park is supported as it will yield long-term benefits for tourism, the economy and protection of biodiversity for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 215
Submitted by: Michelle Taylor (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has recreational value which should be retained and not destroyed by a marina. • Marine life and wildlife need to be preserved as the environmental impact of the area will be catastrophic. • Tourists enjoy the site for its recreational and environmental assets. The proposal will also affect the local business along the foreshore. • There are other canal estates which can be access by people.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 216
Submitted by: Sandra Taylor (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been given to the people for recreation/conservation purposes. • Salt water could affect Lake Richmond and the pelicans. • Loss of seagrass which can’t be revegetated and Little Penguin population because of boat strikes. • Loss of another native bushland area for the area. • Thrombolites in Lake Richmond are at further risk of destruction. • The coastal park is supported. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 217
Submitted by: Geordie Thompson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal is a major change to the local environment (i.e. seagrass changes, dredging and slurry impacts, issues associated with internal water body) with no guarantee that negative impacts will be contained. • The proposal includes a 500 m seawall which will halve the existing beach area. • The land was given to the State for recreation/conservation purposes. The benefits of community access to a natural asset are many. • The proposal imposes an extra cost on the community for a few wealthy people. • No contact with Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) and City of Rockingham staff regarding proposal. The jet-ski area will be affected and closed, and crabbing will be affected given the need to detour around the canal.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 218
Submitted by: Kim Zoutman (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purpose and should be retained for future generations. The environmental destruction caused by the proposal will be irreversible, including the impact on the penguins which will be a loss to tourism and the community. A coastal park would be a better option for the site.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 219
Submitted by: Edward M Ansell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The area contains seagrass which will be negatively impacted by the proposed development. • The canals are flawed are will not be able to flush well. It is likely that the canals will be extended into the Shoalwater Marine Park. • Past canal development has been problematic and costly to the State and local governments. • The canals have been proven to create a number of issues and are a financial burden on everyone involved. The developer will not be required to put money aside for future restorations. • The canals will not enhance business in Rockingham. • The 1964 State agreement was for the site to be used for recreation/conservation purposes and not for a marina and canals. • The coastal park plan is supported as it will enhance the locality and provide better tourism and recreation opportunities for future generations to enjoy.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 220
Submitted by: Kylie Renee Blick (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Lake Richmond
I often use Lake Richmond for jogging with a friend and my children. My children love to explore and we are always on the lookout for the endangered bird species that frequent the lake. I am awestruck by the uniqueness of this lake, which is the closest freshwater lake to the ocean in Australia and contains endangered Thrombolites that date back 600 million years. The lake is already considered at extreme risk. My concern is that the canals that are proposed as part of the rezoning of Cape Peron will lead to the salinification of the lake as the canals will be within close proximity and the porous limestone will provide little protection against incoming sea water.
Lost Opportunity for Ecotourism - Lost Income for the State
I believe that the local community and the wider Western Australian and Australian economies would achieve greater economic benefit from the development of the proposed Cape Peron Coastal Park than with a housing/canal development; further to being of a greater economic benefit this is an option that would allow for the preservation of the natural environment and protect native flora and fauna. The financial potential of the area would be greatly diminished if a residential and/or canal development was to be allowed to go ahead. The development of a "Hillarys style marina" would be of greater value if it were to be at the Wanliss Street alternate site as the impact to the environment would be greatly reduced and this site is close to existing local hospitality and retail businesses rather than creating competition for these businesses, therefore they would benefit from an increase in revenue also. I believe that had the opponents to the marina development been given the same funding to promote the alternative coastal park as the developers were given for the purposes of promoting the canal project a majority of Western Australians would be against the marina development.
Bush Forever
The site was gifted to the peoples of WA by the federal government under the condition that it would not be developed and was to be used for the recreation of the people of Western Australia. I strongly believe that the Government of Western Australia should not break this agreement (and question whether they are legally allowed to).
The Little Penguins
The endangered Little Penguins of the area face further pressure with the development of the proposed Mangles Bay Marina in the area with increased boat traffic, pollution and most importantly the destruction of the seagrass that is the penguins feeding ground. Attempts at re-establishing seagrass after development have failed in other areas and there is little reason to believe it will be successful in this case. Of most concern is the neglect by the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the penguins at all in their assessment when granting EPA approval for the development.
Other Canal projects
Issues and problems associated with other similar canal developments such as the Port Geographe marina and the banning of canal developments in other states should be taken into consideration.
Canal developments in this and other states should be investigated and considered as to why they have been banned and/or problems encountered. Canal developments have cost taxpayers millions of dollars to maintain and repair damage (taxpayers paid $28 million in an attempt to fix beach erosion and seagrass accumulation at Port Geographe). The ongoing costs of canal maintenance should also be considered, such as the replacement of canal walls every 30 years and other major issues that are likely to arise five to ten years after the completion of the canals. The developers plan to take their profits and 'wash their hands' of any issues five years after construction, leaving the people of Western Australia to foot the ongoing bills. These housing lots will be affordable only by a small percentage of the community (of which there will be approximately 400) and the costs will be borne by the wider community including those that are already struggling with the cost of living. My view is that the disadvantaged will be partly bearing the cost of a project that they will essentially be excluded from.
Experts have advised that the current proposed development at Cape Peron will not flush properly and it is anticipated that tax and rate payers will be made liable for the ongoing dredging costs. This is neither fair nor sustainable in the current unpredictable economic climate. Further I do not believe that these costs will reflect any perceived benefits to the broader community - in short, I believe these costs will be borne by the whole of the community to the benefit of a few.
Loss of Accessibility
My family and I, including two primary school aged children and a 20-year-old, all regularly frequent the Cape (Point) Peron areas. I am a part of a group of friends who regularly exercise at the site (usually twice per week) and my daughter exercises there with the family dog multiple times per week and is often privy to the wildlife in the area and has seen some amazing sites (such as masses of stingrays close to shore and dolphins playing close to shore). I believe that these activities are not only beneficial to our physical wellbeing but also contribute to our mental wellbeing and allows us to enjoy the untouched beauty of the largely unspoiled unique area in a time when such areas are becoming more and more scarce; and when the occurrence of mental illness is on the increase it is essential that we preserve such unique and vulnerable areas. The accessibility of the area is anticipated to be greatly restricted in the reported (by the developer) 20 years that it will take to complete the development.
Questionable Practices
I believe that the Government bodies and the private developers have chosen not to consider all aspects of the project and have sought to minimise the concerns about the impact to the economy, environment, flora and fauna. These issues need to be properly and independently investigated and evaluated before any consideration to rezoning occurs.
Wildlife
The impact to the local wildlife that we as Western Australians have the privilege to enjoy would be immense and irreversible if the residential housing is approved and will be made ever worse with a canal development. Already endangered species such as the penguins, sea lions (a rare colony of males endangered and protected), pelicans (the world's largest), local dolphins etc. will all be impacted adversely.
There is speculation that the developers will sell the land under the guise of a marina project and once their profits are made they will abandon the project, leaving this currently pristine natural area as another housing estate without any of the spouted "benefits" that are being promoted to get the public on side. While I would be happy for the canals to not go ahead, I believe that a housing development would have dire consequences to the environment, 'eat up' the public land to little or no benefit to the broader community (private companies will take the profits) and the wildlife will be irreversibly affected.
The reasons to reject the rezoning at Cape Peron are many and varied and I could continue to add to the list above; however, the issues listed so far, in my opinion, are enough to reject the application to rezone. I ask that I am granted a hearing to expand on the points I have discussed. I believe that many West Australians believe the Mangles Bay Marina proposal to be in Mangles Bay due to the proponents changing its name to Mangles Bay Marina. The development is actually at Cape Peron (commonly known as Point Peron to West Australians). I think that this has been done to mislead the public into thinking the Marina is not at Cape Peron.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 221
Submitted by: Susan Brent (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is used for a range of recreation purposes and has historical connections. • The proposal to retain the site as part of a coastal park is supported, and not a canal development which will create a range of problems. • Job creation is a short-term view and the loss of the natural coastline is not supported. • It would be good to use the site for future recreation purposes, which could include recreation and education amenities. • The proposal will impact on birdlife and advised by other experts.
Additional Information
The submission supports the Hands Off Point Peron group and their efforts to save the coastline. The main concern is the protection of the penguins and Dr Cannell’s views should be given consideration. Canal developments have failed elsewhere and should not be considered at Point Peron.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 222, 262, 265, 286, 287, 395, 396, 432
Submitted by: Nadia D'Hart, Alexis D'Hart, Belinda Doust, Oliver Penman, Peter Podolski, Rasidah Dobbs, Stephen Dobbs, Alana Russo (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
MRS amendment Process is Reactive and Not Transparent
There are currently no guidelines or framework to assist the WAPC in its assessment of proposals to rezone land under the MRS. This means that the WAPC can only act reactively to submissions and consider proposals on their merit. The current WAPC scheme amendment process does not allow for the consideration of alternative uses for the land. The current proposal has not been the subject of a cost benefit style assessment against other opportunities which may on the whole outperform the proposal. Furthermore, the initial proposal and MRS amendment initiation report is not publicly available which clouds any public understanding of project justification and process transparency.
Alternatives to the proposal which may include the creation of a nature reserve, tourist based activity parkland and associated facilities need to be considered prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Strategic Context - Inconsistency with Current State Planning Policy
The MRS amendment report references the proposed marina as aligned to the draft Perth and [email protected] Million and South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework. This document is in draft form and is not currently an adopted policy. The Policy has not been amended following the closure of the advertising, period In July 2015 where the City of Rockingham recommended the Mangles Bay Marina area to be defined as 'Urban Investigation' rather than 'Urban Expansion'. In showing the "Mangles Bay Marina' project area as 'Urban Expansion' in the WAPC's draft Perth and [email protected] Million and South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework, it pre-emptively creates the impression that the project is both justified and supported. Due to this, the City of Rockingham has requested that the 'Mangles Bay Marina' area be classified as 'Urban Investigation' when the Draft Perth and [email protected] Million and South Metropolitan Peel Sub- Regional Planning Framework to better reflect its status and to give the MRS amendment process impartiality. This is a position that I support.
Until such time as adoption, the strategic justification for the proposed amendment to facilitate the Mangles Bay Marina should reference compliance with existing policy.
Infill Targets
The amendment facilitates growth that is inconsistent with the objective of Directions 2031 and Beyond infill targets of achieving new development within existing urban areas. The amendment supports urban expansion in a location that already has the capacity to see significant intensification through private redevelopment along the Rockingham foreshore and primary tourist precinct located along Rockingham Beach Road (3 km to the East).
The State Government and City of Rockingham continue to fail in its responsibilities to facilitate appropriate urban infill in this region to meet State set infill targets. The designation of further 'urban expansion' lands including the Mangles Bay Marina project area within the City of Rockingham acts to confirm and extend on this failure.
The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the Figure 9 (p.41) where the area is allocated for 'Bush Forever' and 'Parks and Recreation'. The designation of further 'urban expansion' and rezoning to 'urban' and 'urban deferred' through this MRS amendment is entirely inconsistent with current approved and adopted State Planning Policy and decision making framework.
Protect and Manage Areas of Significant Biodiversity
Directions 2031 and Beyond states that a key direction of Government is to 'maintaining a degree of biodiversity within an intensive urban setting' through the 'identification, protection and management of areas that demonstrate genetic species and ecosystem diversity'. Directions 2031 and Beyond supports this through, the following initiatives aimed at improving the biodiversity of our city:
• Ongoing implementation of Bush Forever, a whole-of-government initiative designed to identify, protect and manage regionally significant bushland on the Swan coastal plain. This is a key part of the State Government's contribution to the National Strategy for the conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. It is anticipated that this initiative will eventually be expanded into the Peel region through Swan Bioplan, an initiative of the Department of Environment and Conservation. • Implementation of the Western Australian Local Government Association Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines, an initiative aimed at identifying and integrating local biodiversity considerations into land use planning. • Ongoing preparation and implementation of state planning policies that support the protection of significant environmental attributes in the Perth and Peel region, including State Planning Policy 2.9 - Water Resources which recommends that identified significant water resources, such as conservation category wetlands, not be developed. • Identification, protection and management of environmental assets early in the planning process through the integration of land and water planning in the State Government's Better Urban Water Management framework.
The designation of further urban expansion and rezoning to Urban and Urban Deferred through this MRS amendment is entirely inconsistent with current approved and adopted State Planning Policy and decision making framework in relation to the identification and management of bushland for biodiversity conservation.
Protect Matters of National Environmental Significance
The proposed marina is within close proximity to Lake Richmond which forms part of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park (RLRP). The RLRP is a network of environmentally significant lands containing coastal, wetland and upland ecosystems. It crosses the unique Rockingham-Becher Plain, from the coastal promontories of Cape Peron and Port Kennedy, to the wetlands of Lakes Cooloongup and Walyungup. Of the interconnected lake system, the Becher Point Wetlands are listed as wetlands of international significance under the Ramsar Convention. The RLRP consist of areas of land that have been identified as having outstanding conservation, landscape and recreation values.
Whilst Lake Richmond is not directly covered by the Ramsar convention its contribution as a regional lake network serves part of an ecological system that services the RLRP and the Beacher Point Wetlands Ramsar site. The proposed marina and associated water management has the capacity to significantly compromise this system which is inconsistent with the intent of state planning policy.
Protect Water Resources
Directions 2031 and Beyond states that a key direction of Government is to 'protect water resources'. Direction's 2031 and Beyond promotes 'the application of water sensitive urban design principles as the most effective way to manage stormwater in an urban setting, to achieve more efficient and effective use of water and better outcomes for the environment and urban form'. This approach is based on total water cycle management which recognises the interconnectedness of all water, including water supply, ground water, stormwater, wastewater, flooding, wetlands, watercourses, estuaries and coastal waters. The urban water cycle should be managed as a single system in which all urban water flows are recognised as an important natural asset and potential resource.
The proposed Mangles Bay Marina will see a significant change to the topography and water system of Cape Peron that will affect the adjacent Rockingham Lakes Regional Park (Lake Richmond site). The proposed marina and associated water management has the capacity to significantly compromise this system which is inconsistent with the intent of state planning policy.
Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change, Built Form and Coastal Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise Directions 2031 and Beyond highlights the economy and physical environment will be impacted by climate change. Accordingly, one of the key intents of the Policy is to ensure planning for the growth of the city understands and mitigates the impacts of climate change. The proposal does not adequately assess the vulnerability of the Mangles Bay coastline as it does not observe appropriate development setbacks or account for the impacts of sea level rise. This matter is yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Inconsistency with State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy
Insufficient justification has been provided against the policy requirements set under State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP 2.6) (amended July 2013) to address potential sea level rise.
The policy requirements of SPP 2.6 are required to be applied at the earliest appropriate stage of any planning process. In this regard, SPP 2.6 prescribes the preparation and implementation of a foreshore Management Plan for this scale of development which has not been prepared. The proposal provides for a foreshore setback of 20 m, which is based upon the following assumptions:
• constructing a buried seawall and beach renourishment (from the Point Peron sand trap); • stable shoreline with 0 m net erosion trend since 1988 and installation of buried sea wall to protect against erosion; and • sea level rise defence - unspecified coastal defensive structures and active beach management.
In the absence of a risk assessment, the required setback outlined by SPP 2.6 is 162 metres. The measures proposed do not consider the adaptation framework hierarchy outlined in SPP 2.6 and have not identified how development of the proposed Urban zoned land can respond to the adaptation framework but to only implement protective measures against sea level rise. Also, the information provided does not outline who is responsible to implement works to protect the development to the effects of sea level rise.
Notably coastal movements of accretion and erosion have historically greatly affect Mangles Bay. This is highlighted by the ongoing dredging at the boat launch facility adjacent to the Garden Island Causeway. Here, the boat launch canal continues to fill with sand requiring yearly dredging. The resultant sand is piled 5-7 metres high can be seen unceremoniously dumped at the entry to the canal in the bushland corridor abutting the canal.
As has been applied in other canal development, the owner of the land (which extends to the sea wall and water line) is responsible for upkeep and maintenance. In the event that the owner is incapable of the required maintenance, the integrity of the whole canal system can be compromised. As the MRS amendment information does not outline responsibility in the event of this outcome, the project presents unacceptable financial risk to government and potentially local government budgets. This matter is yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning
SPP 2.6 requires that adequate coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning be undertaken where a development is proposed in an area at risk of being affected by coastal hazards. As a first step, SPP 2.6 provides guidance on 'calculating the coastal processes', which determines the foreshore width necessary to accommodate the long term movement of the coast; this represents the 'coastal setback'. The calculation factors in the nature of the coast (in this case a 'sandy coast') and matters such as the risk of storm erosion, historical shoreline movement trends and future sea level rise.
SPP 2.6 also allows for some variations below the coastal processes calculation to accommodate specific development such as relocatable infrastructure, industrial/commercial development, coastal nodes and surf lifesaving clubs. Where the assessment identifies that the level of risk is unacceptable to the proposed development, adaptation measures need to be prepared to reduce those risks down to acceptable or tolerable levels. A hierarchy of adaptation planning measures to address the coastal risk hazard are contained in SPP 2.6, is as follows:
• Avoid. • Planned or Managed Retreat. • Accommodate. • Protect.
The PER assessed coastal processes and arrived at a coastal setback of 20 m with the assumptions supporting this outcome being summarised as follows:
• stable shoreline with 0 m net erosion trend since 1988; • construction of a buried seawall and beach renourishment (from the Point Peron sand trap); and • sea level rise defence - unspecified coastal defensive structures and active beach management.
An assessment of the applicant's coastal setback proposal has identified that the requirements of SPP 2.6 have not been addressed. In this regard, without accounting for adaptation measures and variations, the required setback outlined by SPP 2.6 is approximately 162 m. This would be the minimum requirement that would allow coastal processes to take their course up to the year 2100.
Under the provisions of the Policy, the applicant is required to demonstrate the technical basis that this setback is not appropriate, or demonstrate a case that 'avoid', 'retreat' and 'accommodate' options are not relevant in this instance and that a reduced setback using the 'protect' option should apply. The PER did not to address either of these issues and states that the 'protect' option will be applied.
It is noted that the protection measures will require on-going management for the maintenance of the seawall, particularly following any storms and resultant damage and regular beach renourishment. It is likely that the City and therefore local ratepayers/residents will have to meet the cost of this on-going management. This matter is still yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Coastal Node
The applicant has sought to classify the full extent of the 'Mangles Bay Marina' as a 'Coastal Node' which is defined under SPP 2.6 as "a distinct and discrete built area that may be located within a coastal foreshore reserve. Excluding permanent residential development, it may vary in size from a grouping of recreational facilities to an area of commercial or tourism facilities or accommodation."
SPP 2.6 states that the need for the provision of coastal nodes on the coast is recognised and should provide for a range of facilities to benefit the broader public. Such nodes may be developed within the coastal foreshore reserve but should only be located where identified in a strategic plan. Nodes should be located on stable areas; should have no negative impacts on the adjacent environment; and should avoid areas of high natural landscape or resource value.
The Mangles Bay Marina is not a typical coastal node, in that the actual activity centre is around the inland marina and not at the coast. In this regard, it is considered that the links to the coast is not a key feature of the node and an increased coastal setback can be provided. This criteria needs to be addressed by the applicant in justifying the proposed coastal setback reduction. This matter is still yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
PER
The PER has included information on coastal processes. The City of Rockingham has highlighted in their submission that the EPA assessment and the Ministerial Statement, did not deal with the issue of coastal setbacks and the EPA assessment makes it clear that this matter needs to be dealt with through the planning process.
The City of Rockingham has stated that during the PER consultation, both the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage and Department of Transport raised concerns that the proposed coastal setbacks were inadequate and not compliant with SPP 2.6. The City also raised this matter in its 'pre- referral' submission on the MRS amendment. This matter is still yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Inconsistency with State Planning Policy 2.8 - Bushland for Metropolitan Region
The Scheme amendment states that the proposal complies with the general intent of State Planning Policy 2.8 - Bushland for Metropolitan Region which is to ensure the protection and management of bushland. Despite this, the amendment, if approved, will see the loss of 43.16 ha of bushland (Bush Forever 355). The Mangles Bay bushland provides critical mass of healthy well connected environment to serve as a bushland corridor for wildlife and reinforce the hydrological systems associate with the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park system. The clearing of this bushland will have a negative impact of the surrounding community through;
• loss of tourism opportunities where 'nature based experience' is sought; • loss of visual amenity; and • loss of recreation space.
The proposed clearing will also act to reduce local habitat and fragment bushland which will threaten local ecology. This outcome is inconsistent with the objectives of SPP 2.8 and should not be supported by the WAPC.
Insufficient Details of 'Offsets' and the Acquisition of Replacement Bushland
The Report makes reference to the provision of 'offsets' as a mean to justify and account for the proposed loss of Bush Forever Site 355 (43.16 ha). To this end, the proponent is required as a PER condition to acquire approximately 56 ha of land within the Swan coastal plain for conservation. The amendment does not state the location, character, environmental attributes or amenity offered by the proposed offset site. As there are no sites of this size with coastal attributes within the City of Rockingham, it is likely that the offset site will be located elsewhere along the coast or potentially inland where local residents can no longer use or seek direct benefit. The proposed offset will not provide 'like for like' replacement. The trade-off of one site for another to the disadvantage of the community of the City of Rockingham should not be supported.
Should the proposal be progressed, the land acquisition management plan and proposed offset acquisition (including location and nature) should be made transparent and available to the public prior to the Scheme amendment determination by the WAPC.
Increased Boat Activity in Cockburn Sound and Impact on Shoalwater Island Marine Park
The MRS amendment report states that the marina is to accommodate between 661 and 700 additional boats. The demand for boating pens and facilities has been derived from the 2008 Perth Recreational Boating Facility Study (the Study) by the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage using historic and market based analysis of demand. The study was undertaken during a period of unprecedented economic growth, where expenditure on luxury and recreational items were heightened. Accordingly, the study may have overestimated demand. It is recommended that an update to the report and numbers be undertaken and applied to 2015 onwards given the slowing Western Australian economy and level of high income professional and tradesperson outmigration from the state. Western Australia is now in a 'correction' phase of the economic cycle such that demand, and how that demand should be accommodated, should be revisited as a key priority.
Whilst the Study takes an aggregate of estimated demand and seeks to accommodate that estimated demand in three regions (north, central and south) there is no academic or planning rigour around the selection and appropriateness of proposed locations such as Mangles Bay. The Study does not undertake any rigorous cost-benefit style analysis of the locations nor does it consider how increase boat numbers may impact those locations or ecosystems. In this regard, it is curious that the Study does not reference the capacity to accommodate additional boat numbers by way to the proposed Wanliss Street Marina area which already has an active planning approval. Unlike the Mangles Bay area, the Wanliss Street location has the capacity to:
• accommodate greater boat numbers; • be constructed in stages to match demand; • not impact existing moorings in Mangles Bay; • increase activity and patronage of the Rockingham foreshore which will aid in the areas redevelopment and prominence as a tourist activity centre; • act as a catalyst for private investment in 'old Rockingham' where large underutilised lots can be redeveloped for new density housing; and • accommodate boats a greater distance from the Little Penguin feeding grounds at Mangles Bay thereby reducing likelihood of boat strike.
The proposed Mangles Bay Marina is to occupy land and sea territory to the northern boundary of the Shoalwater Island Marine Park (Marine Park). The Marine Park Is an “A” Class reserve and is managed in accordance with the Shoalwater Island Marine Park Management Plan 2007-2017 by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. Whilst the Management Plan acknowledges that the area provides for community recreation, the area is primarily classified for conservation purposes. Naturally, any increase to boat numbers in the area, will have an impact on the marine environment through traffic, noise and unregulated misuse. The proposed Mangles Bay Marina and increased boat numbers seriously compromises the integrity of the Marine Park through:
• increase boat movement and associated noise impacts; • increase boat anchoring during day trips which has the capacity to disrupt seagrass • growth and reduce reef health; • increase the likelihood of boat strike within the area which is considered the main cause of Little Penguin decline (40% population loss in past 5 years) along-side habitat/feeding ground loss; • dredging of seagrass beds which act as the nursery for most marine fish species and is the primary feeding grounds of the critically endangered Little Penguin; • fragmentation of bushland resulting in the loss of habitat; and • increase opportunity for Marine Pak misuse where conservation regulations remain unenforced.
As a regular kayaker in the Marine Park, I have been witness to boat exceeding speed limits, fishing in restricted areas and people illegally accessing the islands from boats. Increase boat traffic and use of the area in the magnitude proposed places additional strain on the Park and will undoubtedly have an irreversible impact on the inhabitants of the Marine Park.
The development of the proposed Mangles Bay Marina and associate increase of boat operations will detrimentally impact to health and wellbeing of the marine environment and places the environment at unacceptable risk. The MRS amendment and reference to the Recreational Boating Facilities Study for strategic justification does not adequately address the regional implications of increased boat numbers and boat traffic on the health and wellbeing of Cockburn Sound or the Shoalwater Island Marine Park. For these reasons, the MRS amendment should not by supported by the Western Australian Planning Commission.
Should the State proceed with the proposal, it is requested the State work alongside the Department of Environment and Parks and Wildlife to:
• increase in the Shoalwater Island Marine Park area; • review of the Management Plan and increase in the conservation efforts to account for increased boat traffic and visitation including; • slower boat speeds to reduce incidence of boat strike, • no mooring zones to protect the reef and seagrass meadows, • greater exclusion zones and times to reduce over-interaction with marine life. • additional fishing restrictions to improve fish/marine stocks, and • increase enforcement of conservation regulation.
Waterways Manager and Financial Burden to the City and Ratepayers
Development Control Policy 1.8 - Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments states that, as a prerequisite to zoning, there is a requirement for the applicant to enter into a draft Deed of Agreement with the local government concerning future waterways management. Whilst the applicant and the City appear to be in discussion regarding the appointment of a waterways manager, the City of Rockingham appears be dissatisfied with the proposal and its capacity to be financial responsible for these future duties. It is not clear if or when there will be a resolution to this matter. Until the role of waterways manager is confirmed, the MRS amendment cannot proceed to Final Approval as it places uncertainty on the ongoing viability and management of the project.
There is insufficient information presented in the amendment to determine the potential financial implications of the City of Rockingham and financial implications for ratepayers in performing the role as waterways manager. This is not consistent with the requirements of Development Control Policy 1.8 - Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments. This matter is still yet to be resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Traffic Impacts
The MRS amendment does not provide and proponent submission (Traffic Report) does not sufficiently outline the implications of the development to the broader regional and local movement network as the focus of the document relates only to its immediate vicinity.
The City of Rockingham has assessed the proponents Traffic Report and has determined the modelling does not appropriately account for traffic currently using local roads to access Garden Island. The modelling also does not account for growth in employment at HMAS Stirling or further infill development. These factors, combined with the introduction of a marina and tourist based precinct will contribute further to existing congestion to local streets.
As a regular road user and cyclist in the area, I am impacted by road traffic associated with persons accessing Garden Island. Most days during peak hour the traffic is backed up along Point Peron Road and Memorial Drive. This can extend as far as the RSL and the Lease Road/Memorial Drive intersection. Reduced movement networks associated with the disconnection of Point Peron Road by the proposed marina and additional residential/commercial land uses will only act to intensify traffic congestion. This will impact on surrounding landowners and the inhabitants of the remaining bushland.
Currently, Parkin Street and Safety Bay Road are performing the role of a regional transport route. The City of Rockingham has recommended that the WAPC considers the viability of the Garden Island Highway to be constructed to service the development and traffic accessing Garden Island. In their response, the City has expressed concerned that the section of the 'ORR' reserve abutting Lake Richmond may not be built in light of the sensitive environmental nature of the land. The implications of not building the Garden Island Highway to the local and regional road network have not been rationalised within the amendment documentation and this matter is recommended to be carefully considered by the WAPC.
As a local person who uses the area and frequents Lake Richmond for passive enjoyment and bird watching, the outstanding issue of traffic management and as a consequence of the marina proposal is of great concern. In November 2013 the City of Rockingham identified that the draft MRS amendment accounted for the construction of 'a road' (referred to as the Garden Island Highway) within the existing 'ORR' reservation. In the City's MRS amendment report they have indicated that they are aware that an east-west connection between Safety Bay Road and Rae Road is a possibility, however, they also noted that the environmental impacts of such a connection may constrain development.
The matter of regional traffic has not been adequately addressed in the MRS amendment report. This matter should be considered as part of the MRS amendment as access to Garden Island and the proposed marina are a linked regional traffic Issue. It is recommended this be investigated by the WAPC In consultation with the Department of Transport and the City also involves the community.
Insufficient Information of the Treatment of Water
The District Water Management Strategy has not been made available to the public. The MRS report stipulates that the Department of Water has supported the District Water Management Strategy (DWMS). The City of Rockingham has noted that their further discussions with the Department of Water, has revealed shortcomings in the DWMS Report that have yet to be addressed. The City of Rockingham has also identified a number of key matters and shortcomings of the document that are recommended to be addressed within a revised DWMS. The City of Rockingham has highlighted the following deficiencies:
• provide estimated land requirements for water management; • provide an indicative water balance to demonstrate that the development will not Impact surrounding environmentally sensitive areas; • the Maximum Groundwater Level calculation requires correlation and correction to the nearest Department of Water long term monitoring bore; • the water quality sampling of groundwater and Lake Richmond requires further assessment and quantification in the DWMS to establish trends in comparison to relevant guideline targets; • the peak pre-development discharge rates for major events Into Mangles Bay need to be quantified; • correspondence from the Water Corporation is required to confirm a commitment to providing wastewater infrastructure to the development; • a hydrogeological assessment should be performed to demonstrate that the development of a marina and groundwater abstraction will not adversely impact the surrounding environmentally sensitive areas; • sustainability Initiatives such as rainwater harvesting should be referred to for the management of frequent events; and • further Information is required regarding the drainage design criteria including the Lake Richmond Main Drain (the realignment not identified along Safety Bay Road).
The City of Rockingham has made the WAPC aware of serious deficiencies in the proponents DWMS report which has significant implications for the project and the environment. This matter is yet to be satisfactorily resolved and needs addressing prior to the WAPC's consideration and determination of the Scheme amendment.
Limited Local Input into Future Structure Planning - Controlling Land Use and Development Outcomes
The Scheme amendment report indicates that that following approval of the WAPC land use and development within the area would be generally controlled by the City of Rockingham through the City of Rockingham Town Planning Scheme No. 2.
Recent changes to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015), Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes ensure that the review and approval of Structure Plans is now the responsibility of the State Government. Local Government administration and Council are referred structure plans for comments but now play a secondary role in the approval process. Accordingly, local communities are disempowered and have a very limited voice.
In summary, there is sufficient alternatives to this development approach including the Wanliss Street boat facility (which has current planning approval) and community based proposals for an eco-tourism based coastal park that are worthy of consideration and government support. Furthermore, the extensive environment conditions of the PER highlight the ecological significance and sensitivity of the area. Given these combined concerns and alternative solutions I ask the WAPC to reconsider the appropriateness of the proposed MRS amendment to rezone the land to an MRS 'Urban' and 'Urban Deferred' zoning.
However, should a decision be made by the WAPC to proceed, I ask the WAPC to implement an 'Urban Deferred' zoning over the subject land to allow the extensive environmental conditions and monitoring required in the PER to occur. This will allow the proponent to adequately demonstrate how the proposal can and will comply with the PER environmental conditions to the satisfaction of the EPA, City of Rockingham and the community.
An Urban Deferred zoning can provide sufficient certainty for the project whilst permitting any further environmental work being completed prior to any potential development of the site. Should the WAPC support the implementation of an Urban Deferred zoning, it is my request that the public be consulted when the WAPC seeks to lift Urban Deferment as part of a community communication strategy acknowledging that Part 6 of the Lifting of Urban Deferment Guidelines does not require public advertising. This would add the capacity for the public to feel comfortable that the environmental conditions can and will be met by the developer and that impacts of the proposal can be sufficiently mitigated.
The feasibility of the marina needs to be guaranteed following the completion any studies, monitoring or works required through environmental conditions, prior to development commencing. Given the basis of the proposal is to deliver a marina; any associated development of the land based component should be linked to this outcome. To ensure that the management responsibilities and costs are appropriately borne by the developer and future landowners/stakeholder and that the land is used for its intended purposed (tourism and community uses), a Deed of Agreement be entered into between the City of Rockingham and the State Government to set the terms for the use of the site for a Marina and tourist based destination.
Submission 222 was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 223
Submitted by: Frances Phillip Eccles (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal is inconsistent with 1964 land agreement to be used for recreational/conservation purposes. • The site should not be destroyed for employment purposes, although degraded it could be used for other purposes. • Ratepayers will have to pay for the future maintenance of the site. The environmental qualities of the site will be affected, including Lake Richmond.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 224
Submitted by: Alison Foster (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it would create residential development in an area which has been used for recreation. The proposal will be unsustainable in future.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 225
Submitted by: Tal-Petra Gusl (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The site should remain as bushland rather than being built as a marina. • The proposed will impact on the environment and will increase boating impacts. • The Little Penguins will be impacted by the development and affect tourism in the locality. • The marina will impact the long-term benefits of the site as a tourism area.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 226
Submitted by: David James Hewitt (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Breach of Covenant
The Australian Government vested Cape Peron in the Government of Western Australia on the agreed condition that it be used solely for recreation and/or parklands. What is now proposed, breaches that covenant.
Destruction of Invaluable Bushland and Recreational Areas
This proposal encompasses over 80% of the eastern portion of Cape Peron. It is designed to provide luxury accommodation at the expense of expansive community recreational areas and 43 ha of bushland (Bush Forever) to protect the quality of the environment and keep this area for future generations. The Ecological Footprint
Environmental studies that have been produced to support the approval of the "Mangles Bay Marina", and if this project proceeds will be an ecological and environmental disaster. Over 25% of the seagrass will be destroyed, the tides will be insufficient to flush the canals and we are yet to discover who is prepared to be responsible for the maintenance and dredging of the water ways. No current authority has committed to this task.
The deterioration of the ecology of the Point Peron areas and their surrounds, is already evident in the threatened extinction of the penguin population, a fragile Lake Richmond ecology and the drastic reduction of fish and crabs in Cockburn Sound. This year will be the third season that the Department of Fisheries has had to close the crabbing season.
There is approval for a deep water marina further north east, although it will not have an impact on the current recreational spaces and bushlands, it will certainly add significantly to the ecological footprint of the area.
Impact on Families and the Community
Cape Peron has been an environmental and recreational resource that has been and remains accessible to a wide range of Western Australians. Activities such as bush walking, fishing etc. are still enjoyed by thousands of families.
The physiological, mental and social benefits enjoyed are immeasurable. Cape Peron is a resource available to the many. A housing and canal development will certainly provide more rate revenue for the local government authority and provide luxury houses for a few, however, it will deny thousands of Western Australian families the opportunity to the land as it was vested in the Government of Western Australia.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 227
Submitted by: Dr Kieryn Kilminster (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal estates are economically and environmentally disastrous with ongoing costs. Canals estates are banned elsewhere in Australia. • The site is used for recreational uses and is a Bush Forever area which should not be rezoned. • Seagrasses will be impacted and are unlikely to be revegetated. • The site has tourism value which should be protected from increased boats. • The coastal park should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 228
Submitted by: Gerry Ligtermoet (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is Bush forever and should be retained, what about other bush forever sites? • The land was part of a signed agreement between State and Federal Government to use the site for recreational/conservation purposes. The Government cannot be trusted. • Although environmental approvals were granted at State and Federal levels, other scientists do not agree with the proposal and approvals given. • The proposal will impact on seagrasses which will then impact on the Little Penguins. • The report from a seagrass expert should be used in considering this proposal. • The City of Rockingham should not take on the role of marina manager as it will burden ratepayers and extra costs will result. • Canals developments have been banned elsewhere because of their negative impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 229
Submitted by: Linley Lutton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Proposed Development
The WAPC has initiated an MRS amendment to facilitate development of a marina-based tourist precinct on crown land at Point Peron. The proposal is to construct and operate a single entrance onshore marina to accommodate between 411 and 450 boat pens and surrounding land development for tourism, commercial, residential and public open space.
The project was first mooted by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2007. An alternative off-shore marina location was approved by the WAPC in 2012 at Wanliss Street, Rockingham. The amendment report claims that the development generally satisfies the intent of State Planning Policy No 2.6.
Significance of the Site in Regional and Coastal Planning Terms
The site is low-lying crown land and has been regarded for decades as a major area of high potential amenity value. Most of the land has been classified "Bush Forever" and falls within the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, vested with the Conservation Commission and managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. Its value has been enshrined in this State Government map which has guided for many years the selection of land suitable for urban development in the metropolitan area. Other than a continuous narrow coastal strip which comprises Perth's coastal dune system there is no other onshore coastal area in the metropolitan area with a recognised high potential amenity value until the coastline reaches Yanchep. It is therefore a truly unique and rare site in the metropolitan regional area.
State Planning Policy No. 2 - Environment and Natural Resources
The state's Statement of Planning Policy No. 2, Environment and Natural Resources Policy, states that: “It is recognised that landscapes change in response to demands for primary products, recreation and tourism as well as for rural living. Furthermore, the values of the community with regard to landscapes also change over time. Accordingly, as the State grows, it will be increasingly important to ensure that those landscapes that are valued by the community are protected.”
The community has clearly demonstrated its value for this particular coastal landscape and accordingly the WAPC should take this into account and not approve development on this site. Furthermore, State Planning Policy No. 2 states that planning strategies, schemes and decision-making should:
“Identify and safeguard landscapes with high geological, geomorphological or ecological values, as well as those of aesthetic, cultural or historical value to the community, and encourage the restoration of those that are degraded, and consider the level or capacity of the landscape to absorb new activities and incorporate appropriate planning and building design and siting criteria to ensure that new development is consistent and sensitive to the character and quality of the landscape.”
The site proposed for redevelopment clearly has high geomorphological, ecological, aesthetic, cultural and historic values and as such should be safeguarded. The proposed development shows no sensitivity at any level to the character and quality of the landscape and therefore is inconsistent with this section of State Planning Policy No 2.
The broad community values coastal amenity more than any other type of landscape. A survey of Perth's community in 2005 revealed that 77% of the community thought that the coast was a major contributor to Perth's character. Furthermore, 82% thought it was very or quite important that the coast offer a place to experience the natural environment. The Mangles Bay Marina proposal is far from being a natural environment; on the contrary it would permanently destroy numerous hectares of natural coastal bushland and irrevocably squander the opportunity to retain and enhance Point Peron as a high quality nature based coastal park.
The Known Hazards and Risks of Canal Developments
Much of the proposal takes the form of a canal development. Western Australia differs from several other states in that it still allows canal developments. The most likely reason is that developers, whose interests are to make maximum returns on coastal developments, exert pressure on planning authorities to allow this type of development to continue. It is extremely unusual to propose a canal development which opens directly to the ocean. Most if not all canal developments are located off estuaries or rivers. Canal developments are known to maximise coastal hazard vulnerability and are now banned in other Australian states and discouraged in most developed countries. Climatologists predict that global warming will produce a rise in sea levels and an increase in the frequency and intensity of atmospheric conditions such as cyclones. Both issues present serious problems for coastal urbanisation.
A great risk associated with the long-term planning of canal developments is that the sea walls used to contain the canals do not have sufficient integrity to sustain the long-term impacts of coastal processes (up to 2110 as required in SPP 2.6). Canal developers have no long-term involvement in the repair and maintenance of canal revetments and the local authority, in this case the City of Rockingham, may not have the resources to respond adequately when needed. The images (included with the submission) are the consequence of canal wall failure in a Bribie Island canal development.
Preliminary indications are that the Mangles Bay site will be subjected to future inundation. The walls used to edge the canals will therefore have to be of a substantial height to account for predicted rising sea levels, annual high tides and coastal surge.
In Australia, low lying areas such as Lakes Entrance and Apollo Bay are examples where canal developments were proposed and rejected in the last decade due to concerns about future coastal hazards. Ralph's Bay in Tasmania is a similar example to Mangles Bay where developers proposed a canal development in a conservation area and the proposal was rejected. The issues associated with Ralphs Bay are very similar to those with Mangles Bay and in 2010 a decision was made to reject the development.
Towards Perth and [email protected] Million
The MRS amendment report cites the WAPC policy Draft Towards Perth and [email protected] million as the context within which the amendment is being made. A major aim of this draft policy is to consolidate housing in existing urban areas. Citing the draft policy implies that redeveloping Point Peron for permanent housing is in keeping with the policy's intent. This map shows the area of land ready for housing adjacent to Rockingham. The areas marked dark red, light red and tan are areas approved for housing over the next decade. The land area proposed for the marina development is inconsequential by comparison. The argument that the marina development is required to satisfy the need for housing as required under draft Towards Perth and [email protected] million cannot be substantiated.
Compliance with SPP 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy
The Western Australian coastline is recognised by the state government as a significant asset and in heavily urbanised areas such as Perth it now seeks to ensure that current and future generations of Western Australians can benefit from the opportunities presented by the values and resources of the coastline. Accordingly, the State Planning Policy 2.6 (SPP 2.6) was established in 2003, and recently amended in 2013, and provides guidance for decision-making within the coastal zone including managing development and land use change; establishment of foreshore reserves; and to protect, conserve and enhance coastal values.
In relationship to other state government planning policies SPP 2.6 is viewed by the WAPC as the higher order and prevailing policy with respect to coastal planning matters. The MRS amendment report therefore must make reference to SPP 2.6, which it does but very briefly. It concludes that the proposed amendment complies with the general intent of SPP 2.6. The proposed development in fact departs from the intent of SPP 2.6 in a number of significant ways.
(i) Ensure that the Development Takes into Account Coastal Processes
The Mangles Bay Marina site is low-lying and unlike the majority of the metropolitan coast line there is no foredune which is the natural element protecting near-coastal land from coastal processes. High tide levels combined with SPP 2.6 current prediction that sea levels will rise by 0.9 m due to global warming are two factors which when combined with a storm surge effect will most likely cause serious inundation of the site. Preliminary findings of the Coastal Vulnerability Study, Erosion and Inundation Hazard Assessment Report, commissioned by the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance, 2013, indicates this to be the case.
SPP 2.6 recommends avoidance of development in areas identified to be affected by coastal hazards. the State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines recommend that development be avoided in areas within primary and foredunes and low-lying coastal areas, such as Mangles Bay.
The MRS amendment report refers to risk management strategies and states that 'the Avoid - Planned or Managed Retreat - Accommodate - Protect hierarchy would be used' as a means for dealing with the impacts of coastal processes on the Mangles Bay site. These risk management strategies relate primarily to existing developments rather than new developments. Retreat, accommodate and protect strategies are not relevant for properly located new permanent developments because the developed sites should, according to SPP 2.6, be sufficiently set back from the coastline to prevent coastal actions impacting on the development.
The MRS report states that the proponent undertook a coastal processes assessment in 2011 having regard to SPP 2.6 and is proposing a 20 m setback and associated mitigation measures. The proponent's assessment was carried out in 2011 and SPP 2.6 was substantially rewritten in 2013. It would be very unlikely that a 20 m setback in an area predicted to be subjected to inundation could be regarded as acceptable under SPP 2.6 as amended. Additionally, the vulnerability study referred to above, commissioned by the Cockburn Coastal Alliance which shows significant inundation of the Rockingham coastline, was not completed in 2011.
A comparison with other recent developments along the metropolitan coast may be useful. The images (included with the submission) show Quinns Beach, Butler and Alkimos. Quinns was developed well over a decade ago and followed the usual pattern of coastal development in the Perth metropolitan area, Butler is more recent and Alkimos is the latest to start development. Coastal setbacks for Quinns, Butler and Alkimos are approximately 60 m, 120 m and 200 m respectively.
At the time when Quinns Beach was developed there was little appreciation by the state planners of the need to preserve coastal dune systems, even though most coasts in the rest of the urbanised world were at this time setting permanent developments well back from coastal edges. As more knowledge about rising ocean levels became available the state's planners were forced to reconsider the existing pattern of developing land so close to the ocean edge.
These are examples of development by the private sector and it can be seen in the cases of Alkimos and Butler that the developers are required to establish significant setbacks. The same standards need to apply for government initiated developments such as the Mangles Bay Marina.
Some variations to coastal development provisions are recognised in SPP 2.6. Surf lifesaving clubs, defence facilities, short-term public recreation facilities and marinas for tourism and recreational boating may occur in areas defined to have a potential risk associated with coastal processes.
SPP 2.6 states that variations to coastal setbacks may include marinas for tourism and recreational boating facilities.
It does not state that permanent residential and tourist-related accommodation, as proposed at Mangles Bay, are a permitted variation. In other words, the boating-related facilities of a marina may be constructed close to the ocean, for obvious practical reasons, however, any other facilities must be appropriately set back.
This does not appear to have occurred here, hence the proposal contravenes the policy. This non-compliance may be due to the fact that the application of the appropriate setback would have a major impact on the feasibility of the project because income from the sale of near-ocean land for non-marina uses is the mechanism proposed to offset the high costs involved with marina construction. However, this is not a valid justification for departing from the policy.
There is also recognition in SPP 2.6 that appropriate coastal nodes may need to occur within a coastal foreshore reserve provided they are located on stable areas and avoid areas of high natural landscape or resource value. SPP 2.6 Schedule 1 at 7.5 states:
The need for the provision of coastal nodes on the coast is recognised and should provide for a range of facilities to benefit the broader public. Such nodes may be developed within the coastal foreshore reserve but should only be located where identified in a strategic plan. Nodes should be located on stable areas; should have no negative impacts on the adjacent environment; and should avoid areas of high natural landscape or resource value.
The MRS amendment report incorrectly refers to the Mangles Bay proposal as a coastal node. A coastal node is defined in SPP 2.6 as “a distinct and discrete built area that may be located within a coastal foreshore reserve. Excluding permanent residential development, it may vary in size from a group of recreational facilities to an area of commercial or tourism facilities or accommodation.”
The Mangles Bay proposal is clearly not a discrete built area and cannot claim to be a coastal node, neither can it be classified as infill development as described in SPP 2.6. The proposal is an extension of the existing urban fabric of Rockingham and does precisely what SPP 2.6 tries to discourage which is the creation of continuous development along the coast.
Furthermore, even if it did fall within the definition of a coastal node, it would not comply with SPP 2.6 Schedule 1 at 7,5 set out above because it is not located on a stable area, it would have negative impacts on the adjacent environment and it would utilize, not avoid, an area of high natural landscape value.
(ii) Ensure appropriate areas are identified for sustainable development SPP 2.6 defines sustainability.
SPP 2.6 defines sustainability as: “Sustainability means achieving as much as possible with as little as possible. This requires current generations to minimise consumption and imports on natural and other resources in order to continue their activities in the long-term and maintain future options. It involves wealth creation, while preserving our natural, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and cultural heritage, for the benefit of current and future generations.”
This definition is central to the problems with the Mangles Bay Marina proposal. The definition clearly states that wealth creation can be considered provided the natural integrity of the site is preserved for the benefit of current and future generations. The proposed development is at complete odds with this definition and on this ground alone the MRS amendment proposal should be rejected.
(iii) Provide for Coastal Foreshore Reserves
In addition to setting development back from the shoreline as a means for protecting them from coastal processes, SPP 2.6 also requires the establishment or retention of a coastal reserve
The purpose of a coastal reserve is to: “Consider and protect significant natural features such as coastal habitats for their biodiversity, archaeological, ethnographic, geological, geo- morphological, visual or wilderness, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, heritage, landscape, seascape, and visual landscape values; likely impacts of coastal hazards; and opportunities for public access, public recreation needs and safety to lives and property.”
Coastal setbacks required under SPP 2.6 have two functions. They must act to mitigate for physical coastal processes and provide a further setback for an appropriate foreshore reserve.
The planning term of SPP 2.6 is 2110. The intent is that in 2110 coastal developments constructed today will have withstood long-term coastal processes, the shoreline will have risen and an appropriate foreshore reserve maintaining necessary public values and functions still exists. The 20 m coastal setback proposed for this development is clearly inadequate.
(iv) Protect, Conserve and Enhance Coastal Zone Values
In its current state, the site offers ecological, cultural and social benefits to the broad community. The combination of a relatively intact natural environment, low-key community facilities in close proximity to the water, unrestricted continued access to a casual beach and an enticing visual landscape, both in prospect and aspect, all make this a unique place of high value to the broad community. If developed as proposed, all of these broad community benefits will be lost.
The rock breakwaters used to protect the entrance to the marina will break the continuity of the beach; the height of the revetments used to retain fill along the waterfront will completely alter any natural visual landscape; and, the entire beach front will give the impression of a privatised unnatural development. The images (included with the submission) with Mangles Bay as it is on the right demonstrate the type of impact the development would have on the appearance of the beachfront.
Compliance with SPP 2.8 and SPP 3
The stated aim of SPP 2.8, Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region is:
“to provide a policy and implementation framework that will ensure bushland protection and management issues in the Perth Metropolitan Region are appropriately addressed and integrated with broader land use planning and decision-making.”
SPP No 2.8 states: “The policy recognises the protection and management of significant bushland areas as a fundamental consideration in the planning process, while also seeking to integrate and balance wider environmental, social and economic considerations. In general terms, the policy does not prevent development where it is consistent with the policy measures in this policy and other planning and environmental considerations and, ...this policy and Bush Forever recognise a target of at least 10 percent of the original extent of each vegetation complex (as representative of ecological communities at the regional scale) for the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the Perth Metropolitan Region, which is recognised as a constrained area.”
This policy needs to be considered in light of the growing international understanding of the role of natural urban greenspaces. Like so many policies developed by the WAPC, SPP 2.8 references only Western Australian and some other state government publications to support its content. It has been well recorded for many years in many sources that the South West of Western Australia is among the most biodiverse area in the world. Much of the land in Perth's metropolitan area can claim this status and accordingly many sites in the metropolitan area are rated as Bush Forever sites. There is a large quantity of international literature describing the important symbiotic relationship between the natural environment and societal wellbeing. In planning terms there is a considerable quantity of literature indicating how natural landscapes make a significant positive contribution to the environment 'in environmental and climatic terms.
SPP 2.8 refers to matters that need to be taken account of when assessing the acceptability or otherwise of a particular development proposal that would have an adverse impact on 'Bush Forever', such as the proposed Mangles Bay Marina development. Under the policy the destruction of the Bush Forever site 355 at Point Peron could only be justified if there is a highly compelling rationale and demonstrated need for the development at that specific site, and no practical way to avoid the loss. This is simply not the case, on the contrary:
• The need for the proposed housing estate at this particular site has not been substantiated and cannot be justified. Any housing need can easily be met by building elsewhere, thus avoiding any adverse impact on this Bush Forever. • The need to construct an inland marina at this particular location has not been demonstrated. On the contrary it is an unsuitable site to build a marina for a number of practical reasons, addressed below. There is also a risk that funding to build the marina may not be secured, resulting in the Bush Forever being sacrificed without the marina ever being built.
Bush Forever site 355 appears in the Draft Perth Coastal Planning Strategy, December 2008 with the following description: “Point Peron and adjacent bushland occurs in this precinct and contains vegetation from the Quindalup complex. A threatened ecological community, Callitris preissii and/or Melaleuca lanceolata forests and woodlands, has been identified at Point Peron. Two significant reptile species have been recorded in this precinct.”
In the strategy, coastal areas are listed as precincts and Point Peron is listed as precinct 44. The strategy for precinct 44 includes the following key recommendations relevant to coastal planning: “The recommended physical coastal processes setback category ranges from small (less than 65 metres) to large (greater than 120 metres); and develop and implement a coastal management plan.”
Both recommendations are at odds with the MRS amendment report. The current proposal is to permit a setback of 20 m and to completely alter and destroy the naturalness of the coastline. SPP 3, Urban Growth and Settlement, defers to SPP 2.6 for principles for coastal planning, however, it reinforces the following overarching principle: “Coastal development needs to be carefully planned to ensure beaches, dunes, estuaries and coastal wetlands are protected, and the risk of storm damage and shoreline erosion is carefully managed...”
The proposed MRS amendment is at odds with SPP 3 objectives including: “To manage the growth and development of urban areas in response to the social and economic needs of the community and in recognition of relevant climatic, environmental and community values and constraints; and protecting biodiversity and areas of environmental significance, and promoting the concept of an interlinked system of regional and local open space.”
Alternative Sites
An alternative marina site is available at Wanliss Street. The alternative marina has received planning approval. The Cockburn Sound Management Council doesn't support the Mangles Bay Marina proposal but does support the Wanliss Street alternative. The New Coastal Assets Branch of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2008) does not have a preference between Mangles Bay and Wanliss Street. It is significant that The Cockburn Sound Management Council which has responsibility for monitoring and managing the condition of Cockburn Sound doesn't support the Mangles Bay proposal. In planning terms, the Wanliss Street site has the following advantages:
• the site is centrally located and within 500 m of most of the tourism, hospitality and apartment facilities already developed along Rockingham Beach Road; • it adheres to good planning practice which involves concentrating the type of facilities located around Wanliss Street; • the beach front has already been developed with a cultivated foreshore reserve therefore the new marina will not be distressing a pristine site; • the marina would be located in existing deep water and would not require any diminution of reserved public land; • any future sea walls required to protect this part of Rockingham from inundation could be included in the development and would complement rather than detract from the existing visual landscape; • the appearance of a busy and visually prominent marina along this part of the coastline would make a significant positive contribution to the visual appeal of coastal Rockingham which in turn would attract visitors; and, • it is a low risk option in terms of its ability to withstand future coastal process because no major support facilities are proposed.
The Mangles Bay site by comparison has the following disadvantages:
• it is located more than 2 km from Rockingham's existing tourism, hospitality and apartment facilities; • it destroys a natural site; • it requires the taking of reserved public land; • it dilutes the opportunity to concentrate commercial facilities and will establish competition with existing traders and businesses, many of whom already struggle during the winter months; • it detracts from the existing visual landscape; and • it is a high risk option in terms of both its capital financing and its ability to withstand future coastal process because major support facilities are proposed within sensible coastal setbacks.
The Risk of Rezoning in Haste
A significant risk in this rezoning process is that the WAPC will hastily rezone the land and subsequently find detailed studies reveal the site is inappropriate for urban development. There is sufficient information presently available to suggest that this site is too low-lying to be used for urban uses and further detailed studies will most likely simply confirm this to be the case.
Appropriate setbacks required under SPP 2.6, when applied properly and responsibly on this site, will remove a large portion of land currently marked for permanent development. The result will be increased density on the remainder of the site as the developer seeks to achieve profit-making yields. The higher density will manifest itself in a built form usually found in more concentrated urbanized areas and totally out of character with the remainder of Point Peron.
A further and probably higher risk is that detailed studies done after the rezoning process will show that construction of the marina will not be feasible. Marinas are extremely costly to construct and when developed by private enterprise the margins required to generate a profit must be well protected. This particular marina would be especially expensive to build given the need to use wet excavation construction methods. Maintenance costs may also be very high. Perth is undergoing a very uncertain time with respect to residential property values and many projects are being placed on hold. The recent example of a marina proposal at Dampier shows that only after very detailed studies were undertaken was it discovered that the marina proposal was not feasible and the project was shelved. Another example is the marina development associated with the Albany waterfront development. This was a state government marina project completed 7-8 years ago and still there has been no take-up of tourism facilities in the development. Further examples where marinas have been proposed and have not eventuated due to high cost are Carnarvon and Bandy Creek near Esperance.
Once the land is zoned urban it will naturally become an attractor for housing and commercial development and the original focus for initiating the rezoning may be amended and the core rationale and objective of the MRS amendment - the delivery of a marina - abandoned. The draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework which forms part of the draft Towards Perth and [email protected] Million already includes a map indicating this portion of Point Peron as urban expansion.
Conclusions
The following is a summary of the issues with the proposed marina:
• the site has been recognised for many years to have high actual and potential amenity value and this has been enshrined in Perth's planning maps. This amenity will be lost if the development proceeds; • a major component of the development would be a housing subdivision, however, no need for such housing in this location has been demonstrated and indeed no such need exists due to the abundance of other housing sites east of Rockingham; • the proposed development is extremely insensitive to the character and quality of the landscape therefore contravening the essential requirements of SPP 2; • the proposed development contravenes, and cannot be reconciled with, the objectives and purpose of SPP 2.6; • the development would be considered to be at high-risk in the long-term (2110 is the required planning term for coastal developments on the Western Australian coast); • the site is low-lying and has no protective foredune system. It may therefore be subjected to future inundation (preliminary studies have validated this in the recent vulnerability study, commissioned by the Cockburn Coastal Alliance); • the development comprises a canal development linked to the marina which is in turn connected directly to the ocean. Canal developments mostly are located off estuarine systems which offer some protection from direct coastal processes. Canal developments are now prohibited in other Australian states and in most developed countries. It is doubtful that the City of Rockingham will have the resources or commitment in the long-term to maintain canal revetments; • appropriate coastal setbacks are not provided. SPP 2.6 requires coastal setbacks to take account of the combined need to protect new development from coastal processes and to provide, in addition, an appropriate foreshore reserve. The proposal does not achieve this; • the development cannot be classified as a coastal node, as stated in the MRS report, nor can it be regarded as infill development which may be supported in coastal locations; • even if it does fall within the definition of a coastal node it would be in direct conflict with the SPP 2.6 in relation to coastal nodes; • it is, on balance, in conflict with SPP 2.8 and 3; • the visual landscape of the Mangles Bay beach will be seriously diminished by the construction of large breakwater structures; • the casual public access to the Mangles Bay beach will disappear; • the naturalness of the Mangles Bay coastline will be lost. Given that 82% of the general public, when surveyed, thought it was very or quite important that the coast offer a place to experience the natural environment this is a substantial loss in broad community terms; • the proposal runs contrary to sustainable development principles; • the proposal is at odds with the setbacks recommended in the Draft Perth Coastal Planning Strategy (2008); • there is a better alternative at Wanliss Street which is centrally located and will stimulate further community-oriented development. The Mangles Bay proposal in contrast is located 2 km away from the existing core of development along Rockingham Beach Road and will dilute the opportunities for this central area to develop further; • the Cockburn Sound Management Council indicated in 2008 that it doesn't support the Mangles Bay proposal; and • there is a real risk that the marina will prove not to be feasible meaning that the core rationale and purpose of the MRS amendment - the construction of the marina - will not be achieved. This will leave the site zoned urban, if the MRS amendment is implemented, which will present a great temptation to develop the site for housing.
It is obvious from the above that the Mangles Bay Marina development is detrimental in social and environmental terms and probably also in economic terms. It would be reasonable to argue that it will also dilute the opportunity for further centralised development along Rockingham Beach road due to its 'out-of-town' location. Its substantial lack of compliance with SPP 2.6 alone should be sufficient grounds for the WAPC to cease its rezoning activities. In the author's opinion any diligent and fair minded planning assessment of this proposed MRS amendment would conclude that it amounts to bad planning and should not proceed.
In the author's experience over a lengthy period of time, state government planning bureaucrats have moved away from planning as a means to preserve and enrich amenity; the focus is now simply upon facilitation of development and provision of infrastructure. It could also be said that the state government has become a serial offender when it comes to manipulating and misconstruing planning policies and principles to facilitate its own developments. A pattern has emerged in recent years where planning decisions are made for political reasons or to support particular business needs rather than to ensure good planning outcomes and the community is almost always disempowered when they try to oppose these decisions. Reports on public submissions received by the WAPC, with respect to government initiated projects, reveals the self-serving and dismissive manner in which relevant and pertinent public and professional comments are dealt with by bureaucrats. To sacrifice Point Peron and the Mangles Bay beach to facilitate this need is far too great a sacrifice and cannot be justified to serve the needs of so few. The value of the site is in its low-key naturalness, something which the broad community needs and values. There is a 'big picture' issue here and that involves the retention of a unique natural asset which happens to be on crown land. The 'big picture' is not about providing a marina. Marinas can be provided in many places but sites like Point Peron are now very rare along our metropolitan coast and if this site is developed the opportunity to maintain and enhance Point Peron as a high quality nature based coastal park would be lost and no other natural sites of equal value would remain along the metropolitan coastline.
As the State Government has lost its willingness and capacity to fund community projects such as marinas, it relies on the private sector to provide them. In this case the government's perceived contribution is through making available crown land in the form of longstanding public reserve land at Point Peron. The fact that Point Peron with all its unique and desirable coastal qualities could be sacrificed in this way is an indication of how out of step the state government is with world trends where natural resources such as this would be highly prized and safeguarded. There is an alternative location for a marina of similar capacity and if the state government has the view that building a marina in Rockingham is necessary the best action to take would be for the state government to allocate funding to advance this alternative site in partnership with the developer and preserve Point Peron for future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 230
Submitted by: S K Martin (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and should form park of a National Park. • The proposal for the Cape Peron Coastal Park is supported. A new marina will impact on seagrasses and the Little Penguin.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 231
Submitted by: Ralph McIntyre (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as Penguin Island has been used for recreation proposers. The construction of a marina will affect the locality and environment such as the penguins.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 232
Submitted by: Janine McKenna (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment and refers to the Sound Telegraph which stated that the land was part of a signed agreement between State and Federal Government to use the site for recreational/conservation purposes. The site has been used in the past for recreation purposes and should be retained for future generations. The construction of a marina would not be in accordance with the locality and would destroy the marine life and environment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 233
Submitted by: Margaret R McKinnon (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 234
Submitted by: Frank Ockwell (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal/marina developments do not allow the flow of water and will negatively impact the environment. • There are significant costs which will result from the proposal which will be borne by ratepayers. Will there be any assurances regarding the work undertaken? • The land was part of a signed agreement between State and Federal Government to use the site for recreational/conservation purposes. • The site will no longer be accessible to the public and will affect tourism of the locality which will affect the economic situation. • The better environmental alternative is at Wanliss Street which has been ignored. • The local yacht club comprises many people with self-interests, only the contractors etc. will gain form this proposal.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 235
Submitted by: Janet Parker (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site will be destroyed forever. Rockingham relies on tourism such as the penguins which will be impacted and peoples’ jobs. The proposal for a coastal park is a better alternative which will not affect the seagrasses. Spend $5 million for a coastal park not $20 million for a marina which should be located at Rockingham.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 236, 237
Submitted by: Lois Poletti, Rex Poletti (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreational purposes as it is a natural environment. • The site is a unique environment which is used by tourists and all persons. The site also has historical connections for many people who visited the site for camps etc. • Marinas can be accessed elsewhere, and the site would form part of the act-belong- commit promotion because of tis health and wellbeing benefits. • The site was part of a 1964 agreement where the State would use the site for recreation/conservation purposes. • The proposal will impact on the environment, such as Lake Richmond and the Little Penguins. • The site could be a coastal park with enhanced facilities, it could also have art gallery.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 238
Submitted by: Joan Reed (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will impact on the environment and recreational use of the site for dog walking etc. • The land was gifted to the State with no private commercial or industrial development. • The proposal will impact on the ecosystem of the locality, and the unique flora and fauna and seagrass meadows. • The construction of a marina will impact on Rockingham and the locality resulting in increased traffic movements and health and wellbeing of residents. • House prices are not likely to rise while construction occurs. • The site should be saved as a coastal park for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 239
Submitted by: Bronwyn Rennie (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site was provided to the State for conservation/recreation purposes. The site is sued for a range of recreation uses and tourism. Canals will undervalue the area and have environmental impacts. There are more suitable sites for a marina in Rockingham.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 240
Submitted by: Rainer Repke (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported, however, the clearing of bushland for approximately 500 homes, units, short stay units plus restaurants cafes is supported.
The draft Perth and [email protected] Million document is over optimistic. Many objections have been lodged, including from Local Governments. The “Community Consultation" scenarios mentioned reflect the pre-global financial crisis. Request that new studies are done which reflect the current situation.
Most of the increasing numbers of tourists are Chinese. The Chinese have very little time to holiday in WA, as they mainly do the east coast of Australia. If they come to WA the do Perth, Fremantle, Margaret River, Swan Valley around two days. The Japanese also mostly spend one week. They don’t have the time to go to an unknown place.
The Japanese do more outback trips in groups of two. No chance for Mangles Bay. The Germans mainly do the east coast of Australia, again, if WA is included they only stay two days. China and Japan have plenty of beautiful beaches, with snorkelling and scuba diving. Mangles Bay is covered with seagrass which is not attractive.
The visitors to Mangles Bay will be from inland WA and from the Perth CBD. But do they need a canal marina? What they want is short term accommodation, restaurants/coffee shops the beach and the ocean. It is unbelievable that a canal should be dredged with sediment flow, which will destroy the seagrass, which can’t be restored. This will impact the marine life, and the fishermen of the area, casual visitors and residents.
More people do not buy boats anymore, as boats are very expensive to keep. Fishing is an expensive option. Hillary’s has boat pens available and Ocean Reef Marina will have many more. The WA economy is slowing down, and the increase in the price of homes has been large. The homes may be built but not the canals, who would have to pay for the development, not the taxpayers.
Who will prepare all the reports to comply with the environment conditions and who will audit them? There will be many issues to comply with these requirements. However, the development of homes, short stay accommodation, restaurants/cafes (without a canal) makes sense. It adds more employment which will lift the value of the area.
The mining boom is over, and China is entering a different phase. Australia will be forced to cut costs and change as things are produced cheaper overseas. The State’s tax income will decline. The proposed Mangles Bay Marina will take years to build and for any income to be made.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 241
Submitted by: Kevin Ritchie (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Moorings have been taken over by the Department of Transport and control has been lost. The negative benefits outweigh any benefits of the proposal. • Moorings should be owned continuously by the owner and control over who uses it. Jetty fees don't rise for low income/pensioners.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 242
Submitted by: Delma Smith (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site was provided to the State for conservation/recreation purposes. • Canals have been known to cause issues and are a high cost to maintain. Canals have been banned elsewhere in Australia. • The site has flora and fauna (e.g. Lake Richmond, penguins etc.) which are unique and should be protected. • Further research is required before development occurs.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 243
Submitted by: Lisa Janelle Smith (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • There will be impacts on people's health and wellbeing. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has Aboriginal heritage significance. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 245
Submitted by: Peter St Clair-Baker (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Consideration be given to the future legacy of the site for future generations to enjoy given the impacts of urban sprawl. There will be impacts on people's health and wellbeing. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains vegetation which is 'very good' and 'good' vegetation, Bush Forever site 355 and associated Rockingham Lakes Region Park system, and portion of type TEC Type 30a. • The proposal will affect the transitional corridor between the unique Lake Richmond and the tip of Cape Peron. • There are other areas in Cockburn Sound which can be used for boating. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • Having a regional road along Lake Richmond would impact the environmental qualities of the site. Such a marina accessed through such a small road corridor is not appropriate. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. There are doubts as to whether seagrasses will regenerate.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 246
Submitted by: Stella Tarrant (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 247
Submitted by: Jon Taylor (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would promote tourism and provide affordable accommodation for use by all. Canal developments have significant issues and have been banned in NSW and Victoria. Canal developments have cost a lot of money to maintain in the future.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 248
Submitted by: Judith Thompson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the Little Penguins, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The site could be an ecotourism site which could be enjoyed by all people.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 249
Submitted by: Bronwyn Trichet (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 250
Submitted by: Joan & Ian Weston (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
History
When the land at Cape Peron was handed over to the State of Western Australia (US), from the Commonwealth of Australia (US); it was to be retained as recreational land for use by the people of Western Australia, not land to be re-zoned to be used for commercial, industrial or for private housing purposes.
Personal Use and Involvement
This land has been used for recreational purposes by many hundreds of thousands of people, including five (5) generations of our own family with our grandchildren aged 2 and 4 currently enjoying the land and the beautiful protected beaches for much of the year.
We have learnt to swim in the waters here. Our children learnt to dive and to catch crabs by hand in these waters. Now our grandchildren are learning to swim in the same waters. Our parents and grandparents have loved the area. It has become our family's and our friends' family’s playground. Today, we do not live in the area, but travel the 25 minutes to the beach areas and the bush along the Cape to be able to enjoy the whole area through swimming, fishing, bird watching, bush walking etc.
This type of experience is just not available anywhere within the metropolitan area. When we take other friends to the area, they are astonished to think that this beautiful space could be re-zoned for a housing development. Instead of the hundreds of thousands of people continuing to enjoy the area annually, if it is re-zoned, it will be set aside for the privileged few.
Loss of Amenity
If this disastrous rezoning proposal and the development of the inland canals and private housing go ahead, Mangles Bay Beach will be covered in a 500-metre-long breakwater. Children and adults alike will no longer be able to swim there. The best sections of bush will be bulldozed so bush walking will be wiped out - you can't walk through coastal wattle scrub without getting badly scratched, but the big trees are different.
This Project is Out of Step with Community Thinking
The Governor of Western Australia
The Governor of Western Australia, Kerry Sanderson, is calling on all Western Australians to 'Protect Our Parks' (The West Australian, August 22, 2015, Page 24). The relevant article is attached to this submission. Mrs Sanderson said: "While much effort is being expended to protect the State's world-renowned native plants and animals and to make visitor experiences in our parks memorable, we need to do more to ensure that our national parks, marine parks and reserves are conserved and that their uniqueness is appreciated by all in the future." Mrs Sanderson says in the article that "making sure we preserve this for our children and their children is so important.
I care deeply about our natural environment and I want to pass this legacy on, not only to my sons but to successive generations. ...I feel confident that conserving and appreciating our cultural and environmental heritage through our parks is a challenge we can meet and encourage people to take the opportunity to become actively involved, enjoy our outstanding natural heritage and pass on this appreciation to future generations." In short, rezoning this land for use as a private inland canal development would be an enormous opportunity taken away from us, the people of Western Australia. The Governor has the final signature opportunity for the rezoning approval. We appeal to her not to support this proposal.
Sprawl Strangling Perth's Environment
The EPA Chair Paul Vogel has also come out with an approach that highlights the contradiction in this marina project. In this report, (preliminary report attached) Paul Vogel has warned of the 'incalculable cost' of unchecked urban sprawl in a landmark report on Perth's future as its population almost doubles to 3.5 million by 2050. The EPA said Perth's environment was under severe strain after almost 200 years of European settlement, with its rivers, lakes and wetlands in particularly bad shape. In the report the EPA Chairman said 'Perth is a successful city in many ways, but mistakes had been made in its planning and the State and Federal governments' "strategic assessment" was an unprecedented opportunity to fix them while planning for the future. If you don't seize the opportunity ... you won't get this sort of opportunity again for decades.' In this case, if development is approved, the opportunity to embrace this land as sacred to all will be lost - never to be recovered.
Rich Nutrient Is Damaging Jervois Bay
The article is attached as further weight to the argument against this rezoning proposal.
The Port Geographe Disaster
The State Government has funded $28.15 million in an effort to solve the seagrass problem at the Port Geographe development and will now have to fund the ongoing upkeep. While the WA taxpayers are funding this mess, the new private owners apparently have no obligation to assist in the cleanup funding.
Should the same environmental disaster happen with this inland canal development at Point Peron, the taxpayers will once again have to come to the fore and the developers once again walk away scot free. The land planned for the inland canal development at Point Peron was gifted by the Federal government to the State government to be reserved for recreational purposes for the people - not for private development. If the planned development is allowed to go ahead then not only have the people been robbed of what is legally and rightfully theirs, but they will also have to pay for the upkeep of it and clean up the mess if it goes sour.
Proposal for Use of Land by All for Recreation - Its Original Purpose
This land should be retained for the people. We will hear arguments that it is 'an eyesore', 'unkempt', etc. Why not turn it into what it should be - a recreational area for all? As a tax payer and a rate payer in the area, I implore the state government and the Rockingham Council to re-consider the use for this land. We should appreciate its amenity, accessibility, recreational diversity and take up the opportunity to integrate this playground and picnic area (an example could be taken from almost any area within Kings Park), build a cafe for visitors to purchase light meals, take away and picnic food etc. Provide some running tracks and walking trails through the bushland (not a huge cost), encourage eco-friendly tours to enlighten people on the bird, animal and plant life throughout the Cape. Integrate bus services so that travel through the area is available and provide easy access for tourists and visitors. Develop a caravan and camping area which can be accessed by people from all walks of life. A privately funded concept proposal that has been developed, has not been considered by any of the decision- making bodies. It should be costed and the costs/benefits of both Mangles Bay Marina and Cape Peron Coastal Plan placed alongside each other to allow the community and the local Council to make a fair judgment as to what they want.
The heading on the form for this submission uses the word "Substantial" – this proposed rezoning would be more than substantial. It would be devastating not only for the flora, fauna and sea life but would deprive the people of Western Australia to have access to the area.
Rockingham already has vibrant residential and commercial areas with high rise development zoning. Such developments are not needed on the Cape. We do need environmental sensitive developments such as a visitor information centre and an eco- tourist advisory centre. We do not need a hotel on the Cape, do not need restaurants on the Cape. We do not want private housing built on canals reserved for the privileged few. We do not want an inland marina. We do not want to just hand this land over to developers to make huge profits from and then walk away from any future problems. We are the people of Western Australia and this is our land for all to appreciate and enjoy.
The submission included newspaper articles and other supporting information which has been noted.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 251
Submitted by: Ella Wright (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. The Rockingham marina could cater for additional boating demand.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 252
Submitted by: Judith Blyth (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as the past history of canal estates in Australia gives little confidence that the Mangles Bay Marina could be built, maintained and kept free of harmful ecological, health and social impacts. They are extremely costly to fix once problems with accumulation of acid sulphates (released by dredging), increasing salinity and seeping sea walls arise, and negative impacts on the environment accumulate. Both Victoria and NSW have banned canal estates; also, the Gold Coast in Queensland. The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill went before the Tasmanian Parliament in 2011.
Here in WA, we have experienced the Port Geographe Bay marina causing loss of seagrass and subsequent coastal erosion and a $28 million bill to try to fix these problems. The Yunderup canal development south of Mandurah too was a mess as its maintenance bill blew out. In 1999, the Shire of Murray spent $200,000 on re-dredging, and in 2006, another dredging was estimated to cost $500,000. This was beyond the resources of the Shire. The developer responsible for building the decades old estate was not taking responsibility for such necessary maintenance.
Interestingly, the proponent of the Mangles Bay Marina has proposed in its financial modelling that the City of Rockingham accept responsibility for future management of the artificial waterways. Unsurprisingly the City wisely decided not to accept this. According to UWA's Professor Chari Pattiaratchi, it takes 510 years for problems from canal estates to manifest. Cedar Woods, Mangles Bay Marina would be private developer, was awarded the contract to build, bypassing the proper competitive tendering process. The company has already enjoyed over $4 million in government spending on its proposal. The ease of this modus operandi so far would lead one to suspect that more government subsidising of this private company is expected in future should it go ahead. The high costs of building, ongoing maintenance and insurance have a big potential to cause bankruptcy.
This aspect leads me to look further back into the history of the land eyed by Cedar Woods for the Mangles Bay Marina. There was a Federal State Agreement back in 1964 which stipulated that Point Peron land be restricted uses as "a reserve for recreational and/or park lands" and that the land (which includes the site for the proposed Mangles Bay Marina canal subdivision) must not be used "for private industrial, commercial or residential development."
Another case of good historic intentions being run over can be seen in Bush Forever's designation of Point Peron as a Bush Forever site (#353). The Ministry for Planning in December 2000, stated that "Bush Forever is about protecting the quality of our environment" so that "our children and future generations will be able to appreciate and enjoy our natural heritage places."
This is a very important point. As our population grows, such places, in their natural estate, increase in value. They are essential for mental health as they refresh our spirits (Research validates this linkage.) They provide healthy space for physical recreation, for community building through sharing their space such as picnic grounds and walking trails, and other good activities, and also conserve the ecology of our natural estate itself. The terrestrial and marine flora and fauna of Point Peron certainly have their own right to continue to exist, but they also provide a counterbalance to our urbanisations and are needed by people. Throughout our evolution we've been drawn to the coast and it satisfies something deep within us, and access to such places should be open to everyone regardless of wealth. The Mangles Bay Marina would block off a significant amount of coastal access to those not living in that estate.
There are many ecological downsides to building the Mangles Bay Marina. The impact of dredging on the health of seagrass is a critical one. Mangles Bay contains some of the diminishing seagrass beds of Cockburn Sound. Seagrass protects coastlines from erosion, a service even more necessary as global warming increases its grip and brings more storm surges and rising sea levels (and higher insurance premiums). Seagrass in Mangles Bay provides feeding grounds for Australian Sea Lions. Dolphins also feed and breed there. Seagrass beds help to maintain fish populations upon which the Little Penguins and Australian Pelicans feed. All part of the "Web of Life" that we should so our utmost to maintain.
These factors are probably what led the EPA (Bulletin 693, July 1993) to conclude that "the proposed marina at Mangles Bay is environmentally unacceptable and should not proceed." While Cedar Woods would make a fortune selling the homes in the Mangles Bay Marina, the company would not stay around to help meet the consequent maintenance and insurance costs. That onus would probably be met through public money from our taxes, including from those who would be blocked off the Mangles Bay Marina's part of the coast.
To keep a canal estate in a healthy state it is necessary that the canals be flushed every 3 days but Asia Pacific (engaged by Cedar Woods) to assess the flushing rate of the estate found that it would take 4 to 14 days with an annual median of 6.8 days. This finding was independently agreed by Dr Jason Fantenucci of Oceanica. Cedar Woods propose to pump sea water into the canals to assist flushing, but this could be very costly, cannot be trialled first and might not work. Also, how long would the company take the responsibility for this artificial flushing of these artificial canals? The whole idea of this marina has so many problems, many of which have been demonstrated by existing canal estates. Why can we not learn from the mistakes of others? I hope that the Planning Commission will refuse permission for the scheme to go ahead.
Local people already living around Rockingham have proposed an alternative plan. The Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan should be familiar to whoever is reading the submission, so I will just mention its breadth below. I find it to be a very refreshing and comprehensive plan, much aligned to what is likely to make people happy and excellent for the environment. Hope that the WAPC will consider all aspects brought up by these local people who have thought long and hard over some years about Cape Peron. Its legacy if implemented would be beneficial to a wider demographic, it would cost far less than the Mangles Bay Marina to establish and maintain, and it would boost the local economy and conserve much valued bushland.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 253
Submitted by: Nicholas James Bolton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The Government has restricted the site for off road vehicles, crabbers, moorings etc, but now it suggests there is a need for such uses as they are underutilised. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 254
Submitted by: Gabriel Bray (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. The dredging will impact the penguins which are a unique part of Rockingham which should be protected. The marina will cause environmental impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 255
Submitted by: Gladys Evelyn Bywaters (interested resident) Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The submitter would not visit the marina at Point Peron. • The Rockingham area is not wealthy and a lot of people will not afford to keep boats at the marina. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposal and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The Little Penguin and Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 256
Submitted by: Kate Conway (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. Will other bush forever sites be sold? • The Little Penguin, birds, dolphins will be affected. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • There will be ongoing maintenance costs and mosquito impacts will be expensive to control.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 257
Submitted by: Sarah Cowgill (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife which should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. The marine life will be destroyed. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less for ratepayers and benefit all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 258
Submitted by: Don Crockford (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposal will change the natural shoreline and require dredging and ongoing maintenance which will cost ratepayers. Water quality will also be affected. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. Mangles Bay Marina is not like Hillarys as that was over the water, rather than an inland canal.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 259
Submitted by: Harmony Crouch (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• Canal developments have significant issues and cost a lot of money to maintain in the future. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 260
Submitted by: Scott Crouch (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The proposal will impact the marine life animals such as dolphins, sea lions, penguins etc. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • Canal developments have significant issues and have been banned in NSW and Victoria. Canal developments have cost a lot of money to maintain in the future and will impact rates.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 263
Submitted by: Kate Dawes (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 264
Submitted by: Deborah Devlin (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • Rates should not be used to pay for the maintenance of the marina.
The amendment was supported a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 266
Submitted by: William Henry Fisher (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
Submission refers to an attached letter which was not received.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 267
Submitted by: Bonny French (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The proposal is a waste of taxpayers' money as the proposal will not be adequate for the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 268
Submitted by: Margo J French (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • Canal developments have significant issues elsewhere. Canal developments have cost a lot of money to maintain in the future and will impact rates.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 269
Submitted by: Jacqui Haskayne (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. There are doubts as to whether seagrasses will regenerate. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 270
Submitted by: Glenn Heaton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 271
Submitted by: Dianne Henley (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 272
Submitted by: Julie Holding (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should not be developed as it has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. There is so much development in nearby Mandurah which is not accessible without a boat.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 273
Submitted by: Paula Holland (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 274
Submitted by: Daphne Holst (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • Canal developments have significant issues cost a lot of money to maintain in the future and will impact rates.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 275
Submitted by: Michelle Kennedy Baster (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. • The site is inappropriate for a marina which will be expensive to maintain for future generations. • There is too much urban sprawl and the proposal will impact on the environment. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 276
Submitted by: Gavin Kewan (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • Seagrasses and the Little Penguin will be affected. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. Loss of a buffer from HMAS Stirling. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 277
Submitted by: Susan Kewan & Roland Bartholomeusz (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments have significant issues and have been banned in NSW and Victoria. Canal developments have cost a lot of money to maintain in the future and will impact rates. • The Little Penguin and Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 278
Submitted by: Carl V Lantzke (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational or conservation purposes. • Site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 279
Submitted by: Sharon McArthur (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment the site as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development (and associated construction) and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Little Penguin and Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 280
Submitted by: Emily McRedmond (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The construction of a marina will affect the Little Penguin. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 281
Submitted by: Pamela Millar & Ian Collins (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes (and enhanced) to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has tourism value (Little Penguins, dolphins etc) which could be enhanced for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • Canal developments have significant issues and will impact the ecosystem. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Does Rockingham really need a marina given the ongoing costs and environmental impacts etc? • The proposal will not assist youth unemployment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 282
Submitted by: Mark & Angela Minotti (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. There is no benefit in a canal development at this location. Additional information was provided with this submission.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 283
Submitted by: Dr Helen Nice (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as they moved to this area to be in close proximity to Point Peron, as it has high natural beauty and environmental integrity.
Point Peron provides a unique environment not found anywhere else in Western Australia and is used by all the family for a range of recreational activities.
As a Bush Forever site, Point Peron is a place that people treasure and for future uses. If the land was to be rezoned to an urban/canal estate, then this would not be possible. There will be no more bush walks, no more snorkelling over the seagrass beds at Mangles Bay, likely never the opportunity to observe the Little Penguins, sea lions and dolphins foraging in the seagrass beds; and the pelicans at such close proximity.
From a health, fitness and wellbeing point of view the site is used for a range of activities (which can’t be undertaken elsewhere) on a weekly basis. The site is used for walks as it is away from traffic noise. It offers green wide-open space with native vegetation, a place of calm to distress and reenergise after a busy day at work. The loss of my preferred location for regular walking and aquatic activities will negatively impact on people’s health and wellbeing.
It’s been assumed that Point Peron, would remain protected since it was given to the people of Western Australia in 1964 by the Commonwealth Government, for the purpose of recreation. The submission states that they purchased their home with false information, given that these commitments are now being renounced. Any decision to rezone this area represents a breach in contract with the City of Rockingham. As a rate payer the submitter is disappointed that the land can be sold for private development.
The State Government should abide by the 1964 Federal State Point Peron Land Agreement and that the land must not be used "for private industrial, commercial or residential development". Point Peron was designated a Bush Forever site to protect the quality of the environment so that "our children and future generations will be able to appreciate and enjoy our natural heritage places."
There are concerns about the ongoing costs of maintaining such a development. The canals are likely to require regular dredging and other management at cost to the rate payer. Canal developments have been banned in other Australian states due to the financial and environmental burden they place on the community.
Not opposed to the development of Rockingham foreshore and support the Marina approved at Wanliss Street, as a more appropriate site for such a development, due to a lesser environmental impact and connectivity with the existing cafe strip.
Many international visitors have been taken to Point Peron. Tourists that visit Western Australia desire to visit and experience the natural environment. They can witness Little Penguins, dolphins, sea lions, pelicans; and snorkel with an amazing and diverse array of fish and invertebrates (such as spectacular Nudibranchs) all in the one afternoon. This is truly a special and unique spot.
There is a responsibility to preserve the Bush Forever status and develop ways to attract more visitors to the bush site such as promoting a world class tourist park, such as the Cape Peron Coastal Park proposal. Visitors from overseas will return and talk about the Cape Peron Coastal Park and associated income.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 284
Submitted by: Rex Oliver (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Cockburn Sound is a shallow basin with low tidal flow which was interrupted by Garden Island which has caused issues for recreational uses. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. There are doubts as to whether seagrasses will regenerate. • There won't be enough tidal flow to flush the canals etc. which cause a range of problems. • Dredging will disturb heavy metals etc. which be located in the sand. • Winter storms cause a range of problems which need maintenance. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 285
Submitted by: Peel Preservation Group Inc. (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • There is a strong indication that a marina will affect the Little Penguins, seagrass and fish populations. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • From past experience granting approvals with conditions is of little value, unless there are adopted measurable metrics.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 288
Submitted by: Francine Preston (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows: • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. Heavy metals would be released by the proposal. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. Seagrasses do not regrow. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • The Federal environmental approval did not take the Little Penguin into account. Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has Aboriginal heritage significance. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 289
Submitted by: Graham & Gillian Rawlings (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments are not supported because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park (and associated ecotourism) is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 290
Submitted by: Laurel Reed (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment on environmental grounds.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 291
Submitted by: John & Anna Sepe (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The construction of the causeway has caused a slow demise of the bay, and impacted seagrasses and caused silting. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 292
Submitted by: Mandy Shaw (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 293
Submitted by: Peter Sherry (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. There are other appropriate coastal sites for development to occur.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 294
Submitted by: Kath Snashall (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons including tourism.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 295
Submitted by: Raya Gail Stanton (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 296
Submitted by: Emma Tayler (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site is used for recreation/lifestyle purposes in close proximity to water and the bushland etc. There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. There will be health risks from mosquitos in stagnant canal water.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 297
Submitted by: William & Sheila Waters (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land was given to the State of WA for conservation/recreation purposes and should be maintained for future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 298
Submitted by: Rainer Winkler (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • There is no evidence that the Government has asked the community's advice for the use of the land. • The Government has not invested in Cape Peron but allowed it to become degraded in order for redevelopment to be become a need. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 299
Submitted by: Mark William Woolhead (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 300
Submitted by: Bjoern Rainer Adamson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should not be redeveloped.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 301
Submitted by: Seriah Adamson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should remain as bushland to be enjoyed for future generations.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 302
Submitted by: Kim & Don Alexander (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected (as an "A" class reserve) for recreational or conservation purposes. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 303
Submitted by: Audrey Aquilina (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as Point Peron is a rare asset to the people, including the government of WA land, unspoilt with this richness of ecosystem and so accessible not only to the local community but the main conurbation of the Capital of Perth is something that worldwide very few if any locations can boast. Its value therefore will only increase in time when conserved as a Bush Forever site. The value of the site will increase as it become rarer and will provide more tourism value.
It is a rare resource which could be used for film and photography locations. Not only can these be lucrative in their own right but the added value of being able to boast these kinds of resources to potential film and photography investors will attract people looking for a diversity of locations in one political jurisdiction.
There is a cultural benefit to the people of WA in managing such a site. As a PR move it will help set WA up as a destination and give the government and people of WA a boost on the world stage. This should not be underestimated and maintaining the Bush character will allow this resource to be carefully exploited in soft ways in the future rather than hard exploitation for gain by a small number of property owners in only the local area.
As a Western Australian who has travelled and lived around the world I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of assets such as Point Peron which one simply cannot appreciate.
I have been visiting Point Peron and the surrounding Rockingham and Shoalwater area since 1980 and continue to do so returning specifically even during times spent living abroad to visit Point Peron. I go kayaking and walking and spend money as a tourist in my own home State which I would not otherwise do. The town of Rockingham is a world class destination but without Point Peron and the surrounding marine and coastal beauty I would not bother to visit.
If the Point is rezoned I would no longer visit. I have many years’ experience living in coastal areas and travelling and staying in marinas and canal developments. These are perfectly suited to areas of higher population density and in places where the marine floor and ecosystem has long been destroyed. I have lived in marinas in Europe and on canalways all around the English Channel, in France and in cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam where they are a perfect fit the naval history of these areas having transformed the environment entirely these places can never retrieve the kind of resource currently at Point Peron.
With development you will lose the ecosystem. The sea floor will change. With ongoing marine traffic, you will have erosion, pollution. The place will become like any other suburban or urban marina development. There will be no reason to come in particular.
Point Peron and the Shoalwater area is sheltered providing an almost uniquely to WA excellent safe family swimming and recreational environment. The Point provides the opportunity to explore and learn bush skills within a safe and convenient location. Development will remove this opportunity. Given the increasing dependence on screen based entertainment and living for all ages this is not only safeguarding the opportunity for children to experience something that is part of Australian cultural tradition (the great outdoors, the Bush) but also for adults to maintain, renew or begin a relationship with the land in a way that cannot be done with suburban or urban land a relationship with the actual foundations of Australia, the earth, water, vegetation and fauna that define the coastal edge of the continent.
The uniqueness of this area cannot be overstated. That this resource exists so unspoilt diverse and accessible to all including tourists, residents, scientists and appropriate commercial ventures such as recreation and location work is an incredible stroke of luck for the people residents, entrepreneurs and government of WA. Clever management rather than the obvious development will reap benefits and demonstrate the foresight, imagination and good stewardship of the government. It would be a travesty not to learn from the mistakes made throughout the rest of the world where resources have been lost to development which then become spoilt and lose their value. The coasts of Spain and Portugal are littered with developments now crumbling and empty without the money for upkeep and with tourists no longer wanting to visit, seeking instead unspoilt areas which are not built up. That is not to say that tourists and day trippers don't want leisure facilities cafes, bars, places to stay nearby. They do. And those can and should be located in Rockingham, Mandurah and other areas already built up. The opportunities are there. Please show imagination and care in choosing which opportunities to develop and which to manage for all people, forever.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 304
Submitted by: Christopher Armstrong (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 305
Submitted by: Andy Bates (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 306
Submitted by: Joan Bebbington (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment and would prefer that the site was developed into a "Kings Park". Point Peron should remain as it has been used for recreation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 307
Submitted by: Greg Allan Bruce (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as once destroyed the site can't be replicated. Canal housing estate will destroy this area. The environment will be negative impacted including the penguins, pelicans, seagrass etc. The site should remain Bush Forever and retained as a coastal park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 308
Submitted by: Lorna Bruce (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. The Little Penguin will be affected. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • Lake Richmond is nearby which contains unique Thrombolites which could be impacted by the development. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. The site should be retained as a coastal park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 309
Submitted by: Michelle Calvert (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained as an "A" Class reserve. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 311
Submitted by: Leanne Carson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Silting will occur given the need for dredging regularly. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 312
Submitted by: Gerald Chesson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The housing component could be built without the marina being finalised. The marina could impact on Lake Richmond and Bush Forever. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 313, 314, 315, 316
Submitted by: Elizabeth Connor, Geraldine Connor, Susannah Connor, Tony Connor (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as:
• The site has many historical memories which should be retained for future generations. • A coastal park is supported. The site has unique flora and fauna which should be retained as the site is part of the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Submissions 313 and 316 were supported by Hearings. Submission 316 tabled additional information at the hearings.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 317
Submitted by: Annette Cotton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The proposed development is primarily located on Point Peron. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street or Port Kennedy for environmental and recreational reasons. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations and there are health impacts (i.e. mosquito diseases). • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 318
Submitted by: Dachtler James Frederick (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • All coastal developments have significant issues which cost a lot of money to repair. Dredging and silting will occur. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations and rates will go up. • The beach and general locality has been closed off to the general public which makes it difficult to access. • The marina should be built elsewhere for environmental and recreational reasons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 319
Submitted by: June Davidson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 320
Submitted by: Andrew Dean (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission advises as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. Taxes will be used to repair and maintain the site which is not supported. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 321
Submitted by: Department of Defence
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
It is acknowledged that the proponent has undertaken a detailed traffic modelling in support of a single carriageway as opposed to a dual carriageway. This is despite Defence's ongoing concern about the adverse impacts and constrains that a single carriageway will have on traffic and vehicular access to the base.
Also, the proponent is funding and engaging a traffic consultant nominated by Defence to peer review the detailed traffic modelling report. However, it is unlikely that the peer review will be completed in time prior to the close of submission period.
Pending the outcome of the peer review, Defence has little assurance on the adequacy of a single carriageway and certainty on who is responsible for funding the intended fixture upgrade to four lane regional road and construction of a second carriageway. Therefore, Defence is still concerned about the potential adverse impacts that the proposed rationalisation of Point Peron Road and Memorial Drive will have on traffic and access to HMAS Stirling.
Additional Information
The DoD notes that the peer review undertaken by AECOM has been completed and that the Mangles Bay Marina Based Tourist Precinct (MBMTP) - Traffic Impact Assessment Report has included forecast traffic movements from the HMAS Stirling expansion (4,000 VPD) to analyse the future traffic operations and needs associated with the proposed MBMTP development. The modelling that has been undertaken and factors in (9,200 VPD) associated with the proposed MBMTP. When combined with the HMAS Stirling generated movements will result in a total of 13,200 VPD based on a 2031 scenario year.
The requirement for a dual carriageway for Memorial Drive would be triggered when daily traffic volume exceeds 15,000 VPD, as a result of any future expansion of HMAS Stirling. On the basis of the Traffic Assessment Report with a projected total of 13,200 VPD, a dual carriageway, i.e. 2 lanes in both directions will not be required to be constructed in the near- to-medium term.
DoD understands that the 15,000 VPD threshold for the expansion of the road is a guide, and any future decisions on the second carriageway will be determined by its level of service and its priority as determined by the City of Rockingham.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 322
Submitted by: Roslyn Drayton (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains vegetation which is remaining in Rockingham and should be protected. • The site has been used for recreation purposes but is now not well maintained. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 324
Submitted by: Bryce R Foote (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the proposed amendment as it is an important heritage area which should remain.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 325
Submitted by: Douglas Ford (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should not be developed for financial or political reasons and should be retained.
The submission was supported by a Hearing
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 326
Submitted by: Emma Elizabeth Francis (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • There are increased risks from mosquito impacts such as in Mandurah etc.
The submission was supported by a Hearing
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 327
Submitted by: Kelly Lee Grigg (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Little Penguins and fish nursery will be negatively impacted.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 328
Submitted by: Gary Hardegen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations and rates will be affected. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 329
Submitted by: Susan Harrington (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has limestone structure which are valued by the community. • Canal developments will cause a build-up within the marina requiring regular costly maintenance, with the potential for health issues. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 330, 331
Submitted by: Lily Hartley, Philip Hartley (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the site should not be redeveloped. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would be supported.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 332, 333
Submitted by: Catherine Henderson, Elaine Henderson (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site should be retained as a coastal park as these types of sites are scarce and critical for fragile marina systems. Canals and marinas are not supported. The site should be visited to experience the uniqueness of the area. The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Submission 333 was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 334, 335, 336
Submitted by: Isaac Hewitt, Louise Hewitt, Sebastian Hewitt (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. The proposed development will destroy the existing environment.
The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 337
Submitted by: Kerry Ann Jones (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 338
Submitted by: Frederick Johannes A Kemps (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The State Government could be challenged on this project as it doesn't accord with the above requirements. Also, other Bush Forever landowners have had little compensation for land being purchased by the government.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 339
Submitted by: Lange Alisa (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the land was given to the State of WA and wasn't meant to be used for buildings. Natural areas should always be retained.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 340
Submitted by: Joy Lefroy (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposal will impact on the flora and fauna of the locality.
The submission was supported by a Hearing. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 341, 342
Submitted by: Guido Leuzzi, Margaret Leuzzi (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the sea water will be close to the RSL Hall and Recreation Centre. The bore water will become completely saline because of the proposed development. Seagrasses will also be affected by the proposed development.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 343
Submitted by: Terry Long (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has changed over a number of years mainly because of the causeway to Garden Island. The water flow is restricted and the bay no longer flushes properly. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposal will impact on the bay even further as continual dredging and silting with occur, which will cost ratepayers. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 344
Submitted by: John Lutz (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There will be amenity impacts from the loss of open space and bushland area. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The proposal is a canal development which can be visited in Mandurah and has little value in the locality. • The Little Penguin and Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Alternative proposals have been developed to conserve the parkland and natural reserve.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 345
Submitted by: W J & P M Luxton (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment and states that there has been discussion of the need for a marina to service the boating and fishing communities. The submission is not against a financially viable standalone marina for Rockingham.
Several proposals have been put forward, with the cost being the main issue with no one (including government) being prepared, to pay for a marina. The subject land is not zoned for development and is protected by Bush Forever. The land is largely undeveloped (but with some good stands of Tuart trees and local fauna), unique and priceless and has the potential to become a coastal park and environmental showpiece.
A quality coastal park at Point Peron will be a much better tourist attraction and community facility than a small marina with a large luxury housing estate.
The Mangles Bay Marina project is made worse as a suitable and nearby marina site is available at Wanliss Street in Rockingham. Wanliss Street is already a deep water site (minimal initial and expensive ongoing dredging) and its development as a marina has wide community support, as opposed to the Mangles Bay Marina which has substantial community resistance.
Wanliss Street marina development will avoid all the disruption, on-going traffic problems, complicated engineering and site clearing and substantial environmental risk during the development stages (up to 20 years).
Loss of seagrass in the dredged areas and damage to the habitat of marine life and, in particular the Little Penguins are a major concern. There will be ongoing dredging requirements and potential damage to the environment. Either the local council or the state government or both will need to pay for ongoing costs. The developer will not worry about such costs. The only reason the government want a rezoning of the subject land, is so proceeds of the sale of the land will provide funds for a marina. A marina which, recent history tells us, could be built at a nearby already approved and publicly acceptable site at Wanliss Street but which, presumably due to lack of financial viability without land sales, is not going ahead.
Why rezone an irreplaceable land asset to allow for a land subdivision and sales on "protected" land that only may ultimately provide a marina? There is no firm and unconditional commitment for the developer to provide a marina at all. Certainly, the developer fronting with a reported $2 company doesn't give confidence in the project. If a marina proposal won't stand on its own, then Rockingham is not yet ready for a marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 346
Submitted by: John Carson MacFarlane (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed road connections don't make sense. • The premise that a marina is needed by the number of boats moored offshore is false. Marinas cause a range of issues associated noise from diesel boats etc. • The development will not include a marina in the early stages of development, with residential occurring first, and marina in the longer term. There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 347
Submitted by: Lorraine Mackenzie (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Little Penguin colony will be affected by the proposed development, given seagrasses will be affected and dredging will occur etc. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 348
Submitted by: Leigh Macpherson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should be retained and not sold.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 349
Submitted by: Les Marchant (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. The population of Perth is expected to increase, and there is a need for more open space areas to be protected. • The proposal will impact the ecological of Cockburn Sound, Lake Richmond and associated areas. • The amendment will impact on the flushing of the site, seagrass meadows and the environment.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 350
Submitted by: Peter & Diane McDermott (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site is degraded as little investment has occurred. The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The proposal will affect tidal movements, seagrasses, fish habitats etc. Who will be responsible for these impacts including mosquito impacts.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 351
Submitted by: Carol McLean (Adjunct Professor)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • There is no guarantee a marina will ever be built and will instead be a housing estate. • Ratepayers will be affected as the site will become a stagnant pool of water with little flushing and a range of issues. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 352
Submitted by: Karen Millar (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should not be rezoned.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 353
Submitted by: Brooke Minotti (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 354
Submitted by: Kerry Morrison (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The information provided on the project is not supported.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 355
Submitted by: Alex Munut (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 356
Submitted by: John Nielsen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development is on public land with high conservation value which should be retained for all to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Rockingham ratepayers will be burdened with the costs associated with the marina. • The development is in an isolated area which does not connect with another locality. • The proposed development will exacerbate existing traffic issues in the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 357
Submitted by: Karen Orlando (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations and ratepayers. There will be mosquito impacts etc. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the Little Penguin and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 358
Submitted by: Ivy Penny (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Improvements to visitor infrastructure would be supported, but not a marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 359
Submitted by: Robert James Galkins (Point Peron Aquatic Youth and Family Association)
Summary of Submission: COMMENT The Point Peron Aquatic Youth and Family Association has no objection to the proposed amendment. The association do not wish the environmental and cultural heritage of Cape Peron compromised and any degrading processes must be avoided. The association believes they can co-exist with the proposed development.
State Planning Policy 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy
How is the proposed plan going to implement the 'Avoid – Planned or Managed Retreat - Accommodate - Protect hierarchy given there will be considerable infrastructure developed?
Water and Wastewater
It is noted the 'Seabrook Avenue Waste Water Pressure Main' traverses the proposed marina site and will need to be relocated. Where is the proposed relocation going to be? We believe it should be located within the planned road reserve so as to not have any impact on our reserve or any remaining natural habitat in the Cape Peron area.
The 1,400 mm Sepia Depression Ocean Outfall Landline will need to be relocated. Where is the proposed relocation going to be? We believe it should be located within the planned road reserve so as to not have any impact on our reserve or any remaining natural habitat in the Cape Peron area.
Drainage
The Rockingham Main Drain from Lake Richmond will need to be relocated. How will this be done and where will it be located? Rivers and creeks follow natural geography and in most cases 'humans' attempted influence on this usually leads to degrading processes and can be very costly to manage. Placing the 'drain' into a pipe and creating a new outfall will only cause environmental degradation with erosion at the outfall end and pollution due to the non-buffering of the drain because of the lack of vegetation.
Land Matters
It is noted that there is to be a 'conceptual design prepared by the developer for the 'relocated reserve'. What is the 'conceptual design' and has it been produced yet? We believe it should be identifying ail relocated infrastructure to within the planned road reserve so as to not have any impact on our reserve or any remaining natural habitat in the Cape Peron area. We would like to see the 'conceptual design' as part of the stakeholder consultation.
Regional Road Matters
It is noted Memorial Drive will be relocated to north of the Rockingham Regional Environmental Centre. The current map still has a major impact on the Association site to accommodate the 29 m Road Reserve. Is this still to take place? We believe there is enough land on the proposed marina site to accommodate the new road.
Also, as stated, the majority of Memorial Drive is being reserved as ORRs, and the remainder of Memorial Drive is to be a local road which connects to Safety Bay Road. In the long-term, this local road connection may be closed, and all traffic directed to the Garden Island Highway ORR reservation. What does this mean and how will this have an effect on tourists driving to Cape Peron?
Marina Management Arrangements
It is noted that a prerequisite to rezoning will be the requirement for the proponent to enter into a draft deed of agreement with the local government concerning future waterways management. The deed will need to state the waterways manager and be endorsed by all affected parties prior to the amendment being finalised." DC 1.8 states that the identification of a waterways manager would occur prior to the local planning scheme amendment being finalised. However, the proponent has committed to confirming a waterways manager for this marina, prior to the amendment being considered by the WAPC for a final determination". Has this been determined?
When will this happen? Given the environmental issues with the build-up of dead and decaying seaweed at the Port Geographe marina in Busselton, and the subsequent economic issues associated with the ongoing clean-up cost, how is the accountability of the environmental management of the marina going to be managed into the future?
Heritage
It is noted that at the time SWALSC have not responded to the amendment. We would like Aboriginal, Indigenous and Non-Indigenous heritage to be considered for the area including European heritage as the area has significant cultural values to many people using and recreating in the area for a long time. For example, the Association members have been recreating at Cape Peron since the depression years pre-World War II. The Association has 42 cottages with 80 members and a further 80 associate members. It is estimated this equates to some 30,000 people being given the privilege of enjoying the Cape Peron and City of Rockingham area for over the 50 years the Association has been in existence.
Ministerial Statement No. 974
Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation: The Association relies on ground water to supply water to the cottages and for general upkeep of the grounds and for fire suppression. How will the Association be guaranteed that the ground water will not be affected in both quantity and quality by the development of the marina?
Other Matters
In 2014, the developer made comment that they wished to acquire an additional 30 ha of land for parking and beach access, where is the location of that proposed additional land? If this is to happen, the Association would like to see this take place on the marina site so as to not take away any further natural vegetation and habitat.
Through local advertisement to gain community support, the developer has continually stated: "totally separate to the development area, the proposal includes remediation and rehabilitation of the adjacent Point Peron to preserve it as a natural community park". What area of land is being considered and where is it to be located?
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 360
Submitted by: Anthony Richards (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land has been used for recreation for a number of years. The site should remain Bush Forever for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 361
Submitted by: J M Ridley (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land was given to the people as Bush Forever and retained for future generations. The site has value as a coastal scrubland area.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 362
Submitted by: Ian & Frances Rodger (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canals are known to create problems and will impact Lake Richmond and Thrombolites. • The proposal will only benefit a few wealthy people and will cause a range of problems.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 363
Submitted by: Winston Rose (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The land should be retained for recreation/conservation uses for all persons to enjoy.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 364, 365, 366, 367
Submitted by: David Seymour, Jacob Seymour, Joshua Seymour, Karen Lee Seymour (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposal will require dredging as silting occurs and there will be flushing problems. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Canal developments are a financial burden and create mosquito breeding areas etc. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
The submissions were supported by Hearings.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 368
Submitted by: Olivia Sprinkel (overseas resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 369
Submitted by: Sean Stack (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
No marina at Point Peron.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 370
Submitted by: Julie St Claire-Baker (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission object to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal for additional accommodation is not needed. Nearby Shoalwater could be rezoned for higher density if required. Additional boat facilities in an environmentally sensitive area is not required, particularly given road impacts. • Commercial and tourism attracting facilities are available elsewhere in the City of Rockingham. • A coastal regional park with boutique stores etc. will be a better option, particularly for tourism purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 371, 372
Submitted by: Emma Stevenson, Fiete Stoll (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as the land was intended for public uses and not to be redeveloped for housing. The proposal for a coastal park is supported.
Submission 371 was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 373
Submitted by: Tim Storer (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons. • The site is often protected from the south-westerly winds and is a safe place to bring children because of its shallow water. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 374
Submitted by: Bonnie (no address)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes. The site has animals which will be negatively impacted. The proposal will pollute the site and the penguins will die.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 375
Submitted by: Norman Valentine (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and the proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 376
Submitted by: Gracie Verde Selva (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment as the site is a valued recreational asset which should be protected.
The submission is supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 377
Submitted by: Susan Warwick (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 378
Submitted by: Kim Silvia, Daniel & Marcus White (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
22 years ago our young family moved from Subiaco to Safety Bay. We looked up and down the Perth coastline from Mandurah to Mindarie and settled near Penguin Island in what remains a unique piece of our metropolitan coast.
This beauty has drawn not only Perth families over many years, but our family and friends from all around Australia and the world. They come to stay with us on holidays to swim snorkel paddle explore and picnic in our precious and unique coastal environment. To walk the ancient shorelines and marvel at our Thrombolites and natural bush.
Usual comments are "bow amazing", "how precious" and occasionally "why don't you tidy this area up a bit and make a park?" Our family and friends are aghast that we would put all of this at risk for a property development. They, and we, shake our heads at the recklessness and futility of this short-sighted approach. After 22 years of living in paradise my specific concerns about the Mangles Bay Marina proposal are as follows:
Seagrass Removal
Resultant destruction of Little Penguin feeding grounds, damage to our most productive fish hatcheries and removal of potent beds for Carbon Dioxide. Local expert Dr Belinda Cannell from Murdoch University has been studying the Little Penguins for the past 20 years. She appealed the EPA's decision on the basis of declining penguin numbers with the impact of coastal development and increasing mortality rate due to leisure craft numbers. She fears this development will be the final straw for a population already under severe stress.
Data from Edith Cowan University Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research, and the Western Australian Department of Fisheries, indicate Mangles Bay is a unique fish hatchery. It produces five times as many juvenile King George Whiting as any other area in WA. In addition, it is major Pink Snapper and Blue Swimmer Crab nursery. Crab fishing in Cockburn Sound has been closed since May 2014 due to critically low numbers and is currently under investigation. Cockburn Sound is the site of the largest know aggregations of pink snapper in the West Coast Bioregion and is critical for sustaining adequate breeding stocks of these long-lived and slow-growing fish. It is currently closed four months of the year to fishing.
University research fellow Oscar Serrano points to flawed modelling on seagrass regrowth from the proponents which is not backed up by recent experience. He states seagrass replanting takes 5-10 years to regenerate at best but typically has a low success rate. He further points out that the amount of Carbon Dioxide stored in this seagrass is far greater than the equivalent amount of forest and will all be released back into the environment.
Statements by developer Cedar Woods attempt to minimise the area they will destroy by comparing it to the overall seagrass area in Cockburn Sound, but do not mention that 80% of Sound seagrass is now gone due to coastal development. Nor do they acknowledge the extremely fragile nature of this area.
This is a critically important ecosystem under extreme pressure, currently closed to Pink Snapper and Crab fishing and under ongoing investigation. This is not an area that can sustain the dramatic disturbance and upheaval this proposal will bring.
Dredging
Anyone who swims at Palm Beach will tell you that the seagrass is already covered in algae today, and the water quality is nowhere near as good as Shoalwater Bay or Warnbro Sound.
The effect of dredging during construction, and presumably regularly thereafter, on swimming water quality through increased turbidity will be profound. Compounding this, releasing 60 years of accumulated heavy industrial pollutants like mercury will poison an already stressed ecosystem, resulting in fish kills and algal blooms, common occurrences in canal "estates". Do you remember when Fremantle Harbour was dredged and the plume reached City Beach, and we were told not to eat the fish we caught? Can you imagine tourists and picnickers at Rockingham foreshore swimming in that?
Coastal Park
There are much smarter ways to develop this site. Our family too think Mangles Bay and Cape Peron should be cleaned up. However, we believe in respecting public ownership of this site, and it's tenure as "Bush Forever" we hold the true key to its future.
The future of Cape Peron lies in eco-tourism. Eco-tourism brings most people to Rockingham now. It is the fastest growing sector in tourism worldwide currently. Creating new markets and employment.
We say let our State Government and Rockingham Council invest instead in a unique coastal park, accessible and enjoyed by locals and tourists worldwide, and developed responsibly and sustainably for all. We believe this is what our Government and Councils should do not sell our land for private use and profit for the few.
Furthermore, such a sale will leave us, as ratepayers and taxpayers, liable for the ongoing maintenance and clean-up of any issues which arise. And experience shows us issues do arise! Canal developments are now banned as a result of such experiences in Victoria and NSW. A unique opportunity exists at Cape Peron and Mangles Bay to create a magnificent coastal park for all. Or to risk the wildlife, coastline, recreation and tourism that Rockingham is most famous for.
Some will point to EPA review and approval. I point out the under resourced nature and poor-quality information of this report that flies in the face of our current experience. This same process has approved marinas in Western Australia which are now giant headaches. In the case of the Port Geographe Marina disaster in South West WA, the same modelling of water quality [and its inherent mistakes] has been used in the Mangles Bay study.
There are too many contentious issues here. Common sense dictates we must be highly sceptical that property developers can manage them, particularly given the acknowledged fragility of this unique environment and the raft of issues entailed. Why risk it? For high risk it certainly is.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 379
Submitted by: Keith Whyte (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Impact on Beachfront
This beach's main recreational focus is walking but it is also a very popular bathing beach for local residents and visitors to the area. It is importantly a designated dog exercise area where dogs and their owners alike can gather to socialise and exercise. Photos attached. The proponents would like us to believe that somehow access and beach usage is currently constrained. The beach itself runs from Hymus Street to the Causeway and has an approximate length of 1.1 km, it is a very pleasant short walk and currently walking unimpeded along the beach itself is still possible. This allows the public to uphold the principles of active recreation, nature play and interaction with a minimal impact on the environment. In the latest plan proposed, access to 500 m or 50% of the current beach will be restricted by the breakwaters and canal entry. How this can be construed as". opening-up this beautiful stretch of coastline for all Western Australians to enjoy" is a challenge to understand.
The full length of the beach is 100% accessible to all West Australians at present. It has existing access points and I am not aware of any complaints from the public with regard to its accessibility, being a relatively short length of beach. The option of being able to simply walk the length of the beach, along the beach of Mangles Bay will no longer be available.
Under the State Government objectives LandCorp partnership requirements it is clearly stated that there is to be the construction of a dual use path along the length of the beachfront from Hymus Street to the causeway. This Government requirement appears to have been deleted in favour of other user groups even after it has been clearly identified that beach walking is the beach's primary use. Please refer to page attached from Mangles Bay Marina Based Tourist Precinct Planning Workshop 26/10/2010.
Recreational Use of Mangles Bay
Being an avid recreational boating and fishing person, the proposal with severely devalue the recreational value that the area currently enjoys. Mangles Bay is an extremely popular recreational fishing and small craft destination and with the explosion in popularity of kayaks and stand up paddle boards etc. it offers a safe, sheltered environment for the pursuit of these activities. Nature has created this environment with the bay's very shallow and slightly undulating seabed. Due to this, Mangles Bay has never been subject to volumes of large boat traffic. If this proposal is approved, it will create the introduction of large boat traffic which will diminish the current recreational value enjoyed by small craft by way of boat wash and greatly increase the chance of boating accidents. Seasonal shore-based crab diving is a very popular pastime and will become extremely dangerous.
The proposal will no doubt introduce restricted or dangerous zones where currently none exist. From a recreational fishing perspective Mangles Bay is the most important fish and marine nursery area in the entire region. The summary paper shows that Mangles Bay is important to a variety of species including the recreationally and commercially valuable King George Whiting. The study showed abundances of juvenile whiting were far more abundant at Mangles Bay than any other surveyed site. King George Whiting is only one of numerous species which rely on this area for recruitment of fish stocks. Even with the planned offsets it is difficult to believe that the dissecting of Mangles Bay for the dredging of the marina entrance channel and the removal of 6+ ha of invaluable nursery fauna will not have major negative impact on the marine life in Cockburn Sound in general.
Water quality is another key issue in Mangles Bay. Another of the State Government objectives LandCorp partnership requirements is the improvement of water quality in mangles Bay. Although this should have been addressed by the EPA it is worth noting that after the original marina design plans were amended to the most problematic of all marina designs that being a single entry/exit type, it was conceded by the proponents that the water quality exiting from the marina will be lower than what exists in mangles Bay.
Coastal Processes and Assessment
The pages referred to in the following comments are from the Environmental Scoping Document. The scoping document states that the access channel will allow boats, both power and sail, to a length of 25 metres, entry to the inland marina.
In the Coastal Assessment the dimensional criteria used to calculate the access channel depth and width states that the design vessels for the marina were specified as a 20 m powerboat and a 12 m yacht. The maximum powerboat length for the canal arms was given as 10 metres.
The access channel depth should be based on Australian Standard Guidelines for Design of Marinas (AS3962).
The specified draft for a 25 m yacht is 3 metres. The specified draft for a 12 m yacht is 1.8 metres. This would indicate that the channel depth has been substantially under calculated and dredging volumes and other calculations are also incorrect. The overall footprint of the channel could increase greatly to the detriment of the habitat. The channel width at 30 metres is calculated as being the minimum requirement but it is worth noting that the Maritime planning of the Department of Transport reserve the right to order that the channel width be increased if they consider it to be necessary for the safe navigation of these boats.
These issues need to be addressed so that an accurate assessment of the access channel's footprint can be tabled for public comment. The assessment does not include figures on siltation rates of the proposed channel. Frequency of the maintenance dredging and the long-term effects on the habitat has not been addressed.
Onshore Recreational Amenity
The rezoning of land to urban rather than its current use for recreational purposes only will result in reduced opportunities for passive recreational pursuits. There are no details provided on the proposed scope of the planned chalet park or what constitutes "Eco Friendly Chalet Facility for Family Affordable Accommodation". Currently and collectively the annual throughput of short stay accommodation visitors to the area would be substantial and it is difficult to see that a relatively small chalet park would be able to accommodate such a large volume of visitors.
As a regular visitor to the area in question over the last 20+ years I am of the opinion that the area is being well used by a large number of local people and victors alike. It would be more logical to enhance what exists by the way of rejuvenated public open spaces, walk trails, BBQ's etc. which is what this area has always been intended for as per the 1964 agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments. A proposal similar to the Cape Peron Coastal Park concept currently being promoted would be of far greater benefit to Western Australia. If the Marina proposal is approved the risk of permanent degradation and amenity loss will be far greater that the perceived relatively small benefits being offered.
The submission is supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 380
Submitted by: Sarah Wilkinson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land should remain a nature reserve.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 381
Submitted by: Kaye Amen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the proposal will not benefit residents and the environment will be negatively impacted. Seagrasses provide food and shelter to a range of animals. The Cape Peron Coastal Park plan is supported as it will benefit the locality and tourists.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 382, 383, 384, 385, 387
Submitted by: Verna Austin, Bagshaw, Brian Baynam, Alex Butler (nearby and interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the environment should be protected. The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons, ecotourism and provide employment opportunities. The Little Penguin and Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. The Shoalwater Islands marine park was created to conserve the locality and should be protected for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 386
Submitted by: Beryl Beckwith (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the proposed amendment, and advises as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposal will require dredging as silting occurs, and there will be flushing problems. Rates and fees will go up for local residents. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. There are also unknown impacts from flooding, mosquitoes, water quality etc. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 388
Submitted by: Lorraine Cheesewright (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which have been declining and will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. The Little Penguin will be affected. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 389
Submitted by: Ann Choong (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • There are enough housing and canals estates in the region, so no more is required.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 390
Submitted by: Dr Liana Joy Christensen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • A marina closer to Rockingham’s café strip would allow people to pursue a boating lifestyle.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 391
Submitted by: Gavin Coleman (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The coastal park will also create employment opportunities. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 393
Submitted by: Janet Crossland (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposal is not a marina, but a canal and housing development. • The proposal will require dredging as silting occurs, and there will be flushing problems. There will be ongoing costs associated with this proposal, examples of similar developments have issues. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 394
Submitted by: Pauline Lesley Dilley (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. The proposal is not a marina, but an inland canal estate. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The former Chairman of the EPA was responsible for poor decisions which should be reviewed, prior to planning progresses.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: Comment noted. The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 397
Submitted by: Danny Dolz Adelli (interstate resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as the site was designated Bush Forever to protect the environmental values of the site for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 398
Submitted by: Sam Dack (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as rocky foreshore should be used rather than the subject land which will be costly to maintain. The environment will be negatively affected. Local residents will experience increased rates and charges because of the proposed development. The site was to be maintained for future uses.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 399
Submitted by: Doreen Duckett (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as it will affect the seagrasses which the Little Penguin feeds on. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is the better alternative.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 400
Submitted by: Carrie Flint (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The Little Penguin will be impacted, and tourists will not come to the area. Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 401
Submitted by: Denis Gray (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • If there is a need for a marina, then there are other coastal areas which could be used.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 402
Submitted by: Caroline Grant (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment, natural heritage places and future generations to enjoy. The proposal is short sighted. • There isn’t a need for any more marinas as there are so many already. There are so many boats which are aren’t used cycle paths are not being used for their intended purposes. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The Little Penguin and fishing grounds will be affected by the proposal.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 403
Submitted by: Johannah Grant (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as no further expensive real estate is required. The environment should be better protected. Pollution will be exacerbated by the proposed development.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 404
Submitted by: Hands Off Point Peron Inc.
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission does not support the amendment as follows:
Context of Proposed MRS amendment
Background and current status of the land
A large amount of land at Point Peron was previously vested in the Commonwealth. This included the land that is now subject to the proposed MBM development and MRS amendment. In 1964 the Commonwealth transferred its Point Peron land to the state on condition that its future use would be “restricted to a reserve for recreation and/or park lands” (the Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement). The plan was for the land to be turned into an “A” class reserve but unfortunately this has not yet occurred.
In 1968, the Commonwealth confirmed that the land must not be used “for private industrial, commercial or residential development’’. In 2000 most of the land subject to the MRS amendment proposal was declared "Bush Forever” by the state government and incorporated into the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, vested with the Conservation Commission and now managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. Several leases have continued within the proposed MRS amendment area along the Mangles Bay foreshore - the RSL and AIW leases for ex-servicemen and the adjacent fishing club and yacht club leases.
The proposal for a high quality coastal park covering Point Peron and Lake Richmond
This proposal has been developed in recent years as a result of widespread community support and input. It stems from, and is consistent with, the 1964 Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement.
In 2012 a draft community vision for the coastal park was publicly launched to great enthusiasm. Since then further community consultations and forums have led to a more developed plan for the coastal park. Further information and expert opinion about this plan is set out at section 4 below. Suffice to say here that developing a world-class coastal park at Point Peron would have enormous benefits not only for the local community but also for Perth and the State. This excellent initiative has been held up by the ongoing uncertainty caused by the state government’s so-called Mangles Bay Marina proposal.
The so-called Mangles Bay Marina proposal
This is a state government proposal, driven by the government’s land development arm, LandCorp, with approval and support from the Premier and Cabinet. It is for an inland marina and canal housing estate on land at Point Peron. The MBM proposal and the proposed MRS amendment are both in clear breach of the 1964 Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement, reached between Liberal Premier David Brand and Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies. As mentioned above, that agreement requires that the land be held in public hands and its use restricted to recreation and / or park lands. The MBM proposal (which is said to be the prime purpose of the proposed MRS amendment) is for much of the MBM development land to be sold for private use for housing and various commercial enterprises. Only a small proportion of the land would be retained as public reserve for recreation and / or park lands.
Concerns about Probity and Process
Introduction
This section of the submission addresses HOPP’s serious concerns about the probity of the MBM development proposal and about the way the MRS amendment process has been / is being conducted. These concerns relate to the fairness, diligence and probity of the process and include an assertion of bias / apprehension of bias in relation to the WAPC’s handling of the proposed MRS amendment, which is designed to facilitate a state government development proposal known as the Mangles Bay Marina (MBM) proposal.
The concerns outlined below do not reflect all aspects of HOPP’s concerns about probity and process. HOPP is seeking and will consider further information and advice as it comes to hand and reserves its right to make supplementary or amended submissions in regard to such matters and to take such other action as HOPP considers appropriate. For the reasons outlined below, HOPP considers that the MRS amendment process is defective and that appropriate steps need to be taken to address such defects.
Draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-regional Planning Framework
HOPP became seriously concerned about the conduct of the WAPC in relation to Point Peron after the WAPC released a document called the “Draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub- regional Planning Framework". This is a document that, once finalized, contains the Sub- regional structure plan for a large area, including Point Peron. On close inspection, two of the maps in the document show the marina proposal land at Point Peron as "urban expansion", instead of its current status as parks and recreation reserve, located for the most part within the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park vested with the Conservation Commission.
The text of this draft document failed to mention the proposed change of status of the land to “urban expansion”. This proposed change is only noticeable by looking very closely at the map. Furthermore, the document did not provide any basis or reasons for the proposed change, to which the public could respond. We have been informed that no public forums were held regarding the draft document - only consultations with ‘big stakeholders’ - industry, the property sector, local government. Unfortunately, it would seem that the public was not considered a significant enough stakeholder, so missed out.
No steps were taken by the WAPC, the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage or the City of Rockingham to raise public awareness about the significance of the document to future planning decisions about the MBM proposal. We have been informed that there is no set of guidelines setting out the process by which the WAPC and the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage considers and deals with the public submissions it received. This in itself causes concern and does not instil confidence and public trust in the process.
HOPP made a submission to the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage setting out its concerns regarding aspects of the Draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-regional Planning Framework document, the lack of proper public consultation and other matters (see Attachment 1). In its submission HOPP expressed the view that it could have no confidence in the fairness, even-handedness and diligence of the WAPC in relation to planning processes for the MBM proposal and HOPP specifically requested the government to address this problem.
Misleading and deceptive conduct
Over several years the MBM proponents LandCorp and Cedar Woods have engaged in an expensive marketing campaign to try and drum up support for the MBM proposal, making various dubious claims, not backed up by evidence, about the alleged need for, and benefits of, a marina at this site. They no doubt realized that they would not get to first base with a proposal to bulldoze existing holiday homes and club facilities on the foreshore, and ‘bush forever’ in the regional park, for just another housing estate, in the absence of the promise of a marina and tourist precinct.
The centrepiece and rationale of the proposal has always been an inland marina and canals, with ancillary development around the marina. Importantly, the proponents have never said publicly that the marina may not in fact be built due to lack of funding, and they continue to rely on the promise of a marina to garner support for the proposal, using expressions such as “the marina will...".
HOPP is very concerned that the WAPC has been propagating the same misleading message and failing to inform the public that the construction of the marina depends on generating sufficient net income from the sale of lots and that there is a substantial risk the marina will not be built due to financial constraints. The WAPC has, by its silence and choice of language in this regard, participated in what HOPP regards as a misleading marketing campaign by the MBM proponents. The WAPC has failed to provide a fair and balanced account of the proposed development and its associated risks.
The proponents initially said that the construction of the marina would commence as part of the first stage of the development. However, it has now emerged that the proponents no longer intend to commence construction of the marina in the first stage of the development. Their primary aim is to gain control of this prime public land and secure approval to clear, subdivide and sell it for residential housing, on the unfunded promise of delivering a marina made without any legally binding, secure guarantee that they will actually build a marina. The priority of selling off lots is made clear in the development agreement between LandCorp and Cedar Woods which provides that “the Parties must produce Lots for sale as soon as possible”.
There are huge doubts about the marina’s feasibility. The state government has said the development must be self-funded from the sale of lots. Given the extremely high costs and risks associated with the “wet construction" method that would be required to build this inland marina, we are advised that it would only be feasible with heavy government subsidy. However, the government has said it definitely will not subsidise it. This means that the construction could only commence in several years’ time if the sale of the housing lots raises enough money (which we are told is unlikely) and then only if LandCorp and Cedar Woods are willing to sink their profits into such a high-cost, high- risk venture.
Even if they do manage to obtain sufficient finance at some stage in future, they would have no incentive to build the marina because not building it would be far more profitable. In cases such as this, where the project has to be self-funded (without government subsidy) LandCorp has a legislative responsibility under the Western Australian Land Authority Act 1992 (WA) to only embark on projects that are likely to yield the prescribed hurdle rate of return. This would likely prevent LandCorp from ever proceeding with the construction of the marina. Similarly, Cedar Woods is a publicly listed company with responsibilities to shareholders and in the absence of a strict, fully secured and legally enforceable guarantee, is unlikely to be prepared to sink the profits it makes from the sale of the lots into the construction of the marina.
Unfortunately, neither LandCorp nor Cedar Woods nor the WAPC have told the public this; instead they misleadingly continue to portray the marina as the centrepiece of the development; they have not been candid about the high degree of uncertainty about the marina’s financing. This all means that the basis upon which the marina proposal has been promoted, and pursuant to which it has received environmental approvals and now seeks planning approvals, is highly questionable.
This in turn taints the MRS amendment public consultation process and in itself is sufficient reason why the process needs to be revamped and entered into afresh, based on proper public disclosure and sound planning principles. Approval of the proposed MRS amendment would play right in to the hands of the proponents in this regard. It would re-zone the vast majority of the land “Urban”, thereby facilitating the excision of the land from the regional park and the bulldozing and sale of the ‘bush forever’ for private housing without any secure guarantee of achieving the central purpose of the MRS amendment - the construction of the marina.
HOPP respectfully submits that the granting of such approval in these circumstances would be seen as rewarding unethical and misleading conduct on the part of the proponents, to the great detriment of current and future generations of West Australians. It would, in short, be a travesty. It would destroy the great opportunity we have to establish a world-class coastal park at Point Peron and the enormous economic and environmental benefits that would bring - all for the sake of a housing estate which is not needed, and the unfunded and highly doubtful promise of a marina.
We have asked several questions and sought key documents under Freedom of Information from LandCorp relating to this issue. To date we have only received a small number of documents from LandCorp. Most of the documents requested have not been provided. For example, LandCorp has failed to provide any documents that show:
• The estimated cost of the MBM project. • The estimation of the amount of additional public funding required for the MBM project to be completed (including construction of the marina). • The estimation of the amount of project generated funding required for the MBM project to be completed (including construction of the marina). • The assessment of the business case for the MBM project including the terms of reference and who carried out the assessment. • The evaluation of the MBM project’s financial feasibility, including the terms of reference and who carried out the evaluation. • The estimation of the cost of maintaining and managing the MBM project waterways; • The valuation of the MBM project land. • The estimated net revenue from sales of the MBM project land and the basis of the estimate. • The proposed stages of on-ground implementation of the MBM project and the proposed timetable for each stage, with particular reference to the proposed timing of the construction of the marina, clearing and demolition work, the creation of commercial and residential lots and other components of the MBM project. • The Development Agreement between LandCorp and Cedar Woods. • Details of the participation fee payable by Cedar Woods to LandCorp pursuant to the Development Agreement. • The formula for calculating the amount of money Cedar Woods would receive for each lot of MBM project land sold.
This failure to disclose information and documents only serves to raise further suspicion and doubt.
Issues regarding LandCorp’s engagement of Cedar Woods
In 2011 LandCorp engaged private developer Cedar Woods to help get environmental and planning approvals, to project manage the development and to market and sell the subdivided lots on behalf of LandCorp. According to Mr Marra, the CEO of LandCorp, Cedar Woods stands to make a profit of “Depending on the revenue component of it...50 percent of the revenue that can be generated". As mentioned above, the agreement provides that “the Parties must produce Lots for sale as soon as possible”.
Despite the scope of this lucrative government contract and the amount of profit to be gained, LandCorp selected Cedar Woods for this role after an expression of interest process, not a formal competitive tendering process. We have asked several questions and sought key documents under Freedom of Information from LandCorp relating to this matter. To date we have only received a small number of documents from LandCorp. Most of the documents requested have not been provided. For example, LandCorp has failed to provide any documents that show:
• the valuation of the MBM project land; • the estimated net revenue from sales of the MBM project land and the basis of the estimate; • the proposed stages of on-ground implementation of the MBM project and the proposed timetable for each stage, with particular reference to the proposed timing of the construction of the marina, clearing and demolition work, the creation of commercial and residential lots and other components of the MBM project; • why LandCorp decided not to conduct a competitive tendering process for the appointment of its so called ‘private sector partner’; • the Development Agreement between LandCorp and Cedar Woods; • details of the participation fee payable by Cedar Woods to LandCorp pursuant to the Development Agreement; • why LandCorp wrongly advised the Office of the EPA by email dated 9 February 2012 that it was “not a co-proponent for the Mangles Bay project” and that “Cedar Woods is the sole proponent for the project”; • the amount of money or other form of remuneration that Cedar Woods stands to receive from the MBM project if the MBM project is carried out to completion; and • the formula for calculating the amount of money Cedar Woods would receive for each lot of MBM project land sold.
The State Government’s refusal to provide information relevant to the MRS amendment process
On 8 May 2015 HOPP wrote to the WA Premier attaching a series of questions about key financial and probity issues concerning the MBM proposal and the government’s handling of it, including its handling of planning issues. The Premier referred our questions to Mr Redman, the Minister for Lands, to answer. To this date, more than 6 months later, no answers to any of the questions have been provided despite reminder letters having been sent.
HOPP considers that this excessive delay demonstrates a lack of accountability, transparency and candour. We have also sought information and documents from LandCorp under FOI. However, LandCorp has refused to provide nearly all documents sought.
The refusal to provide answers to HOPP’s questions has had a serious adverse impact on the fairness and transparency of the MRS amendment process because the state government has, in effect, refused HOPP’s reasonable request for information about matters of relevance and importance to the MRS planning process and to HOPP’s submission about the proposed MRS amendment. HOPP submits that in the interests of good governance and procedural fairness, answers should have been provided several months ago and certainly well before the deadline for public submissions in relation to the proposed MRS amendment.
LandCorp’s refusal to provide documents has exacerbated the problem caused by the Premier and Minister Redman failing to respond to HOPP’s questions. HOPP submits that the prolonged failure to provide reasonable and relevant information renders the MRS amendment public consultation process fatally flawed. HOPP submits that the public consultation process should be re-started afresh on a proper footing, once the requests for information have been properly addressed.
Furthermore, the lack of answers reinforces the doubts about the viability and economic credentials of the MBM proposal, and about the lack of due diligence and probity in relation to the MBM proposal.
Lack of due diligence
We understand that no duly diligent analysis has been carried out to compare the environmental, economic, social and cultural costs and benefits of: • retaining the land as part of an integrated nature-based coastal park covering all of Point Peron and Lake Richmond (Cape Peron Coastal Park option), consistent with the current planning blueprint based on the Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement, the Rockingham lakes Regional Park and the ‘bush forever’ listing; and • the MBM proposal, the nature of which is in flux and uncertain, as discussed below.
In the current circumstances this failure is inexcusable and contrary to sound planning principles and provides further evidence of the government’s failure to handle the matter diligently, objectively and even-handedly to date.
Proposing that the MBM proposal land be changed to “Urban”, in the absence of a diligent comparative analysis, is especially irresponsible in view of the fact that the MBM proposal land (and adjacent land) was transferred by the Commonwealth to the State on the basis that the future use of the land would be “restricted to a reserve for recreation and / or park lands”, with much of it since classified “Bush Forever” by the WA government and incorporated into the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, and there is now an opportunity and well developed proposal to develop a world class coastal park that would bring in high economic, environmental, social and cultural returns to the region, the city and the state - an opportunity that would be forever lost if the MBM proposal goes ahead.
Under the circumstances this failure amounts to a fundamental flaw on the part of the planning process to date and is in itself sufficient reason why the proposed MRS amendment is premature and should be rejected.
Conflict of interest and perception of bias
Our concerns about the process are all the more serious because of the conflict of interest, bias/apprehension of bias and probity issues that arise due to the fact that the WA Government is itself, through its land development arm LandCorp (aka the WA Land Authority) the lead proponent of the MBM development. LandCorp’s role has occurred with express support and approval from the Premier and Cabinet. LandCorp in turn has entered into a legally enforceable Development Agreement with private sector developer Cedar Woods, under which Cedar Woods stands to gain a large profit from the subdivision and sale of the MBM proposal land for housing and other purposes. Furthermore, under this agreement LandCorp has agreed with Cedar Woods to "produce Lots for sale as soon as possible". This places the WAPC in a position where it has a key regulatory and advisory role to play but is not at arm’s length from the developer, in a situation where the government is itself constrained by contractual arrangements already entered into by the government’s land development arm.
Furthermore, issues arise as a result of LandCorp making contractual commitments to Cedar Woods that would allow Cedar Woods to make windfall profits from the sale of this prime public land at Point Peron without having to provide any legally binding, fully secured guarantee that the marina will be built.
The WAPC itself appears to have a pre-conceived view and vested interest in the implementation of the marina proposal because, according to Hansard, it previously contributed $250 000 to fund the Cape Peron Tourist Precinct Steering Committee which was charged with coordinating the community consultation, due diligence, planning and environmental studies in relation the MBM proposal. We have obtained various documents under Freedom of Information about this transaction. The following is a brief analysis of some of the issues emerging from the documents received.
WAPC provision of $250,000 to Mangles Bay project
On 1 December 2003 the South West Corridor Development and Employment Foundation Inc. wrote to Minister MacTiernan requesting $250,000 from the state government for a planning and implementation project for the Cape Peron Marina in Mangles Bay.
On 4 December 2003 Minister MacTiernan wrote to the MLA for Rockingham, Mark McGowan, to say that “we will be able to provide $250,000 assistance through the WA Planning Commission (WAPC) for environmental study into the proposed Mangles Bay Marina” and “I have formally written to the WAPC requesting that the money be allocated for the study. I expect confirmation of the allocation by 16 December 2003".
On 16 December 2003 there was a special meeting of the Executive, Finance and Property Committee of the WAPC attended by the Chair (Terry Martin) and three members (Paul Frewer, Corinne MacRae and Greg Martin) and various support staff. A report was provided to the Committee seeking approval for the allocation of the $250,000 requested, from the Metropolitan Region Improvement Fund (MRIF) (New project Allocation).
The meeting minutes refer to: “Discussion: Considered the basic question of the applicability of the MRIF funding to this project, concluding that justification lies in facilitating the determination of the most appropriate use for P & R Reserves.”
The Committee resolved to “consider” contributing the $250,000, subject to various conditions. The Committee also resolved “to require that, should the project proponent achieve planning and environmental approvals to conclude the Feasibility of the Cape Peron Marina Implementation as a commercial venture, then the amount contributed by WAPC will be repaid by the proponent”.
HOPP notes that:
• no documents were provided regarding the actual decision to provide the money, • the WAPC decision to appropriate the money appears to have been made in haste, under extreme time pressure from the minister; • the WAPC asserted that the use of $250,000 from the MRIF to, in effect, further a proposal that would expunge a large amount of a P & R reserve and to bulldoze the ‘bush forever’ located on it, was justified on the grounds that the funds were ‘facilitating the determination of the most appropriate use’ of the reserve. There appear to be serious questions about the validity and probity of this large allocation of funds from the MRIF on this pretext, seemingly without due diligence or proper decision-making process; and • it appears that the WARC has a financial interest in the MRS amendment approval, as it would get back its $250,000 following environmental and planning approvals.
WAPC meeting minutes regarding the proposed MRS amendment
On 31 January 2006 there was a special presentation by a delegation comprising the City of Rockingham, LandCorp and Garry McKeown (from the Department of Planning) to the WAPC. On 22 July 2014 a deputation from LandCorp and another organisation (information redacted) addressed the WAPC. HOPP notes that it appears the WAPC did not consider at any of its meetings prior to advertising the proposed MRS amendment:
• any advice or report comparing the merits of the proposed MRS amendment with the option of retaining the land as ‘bush forever’ public reserve ad incorporating into a high quality coastal park covering all of Cape Peron, consistent with the existing planning blueprint including the terms of the 1964 Pt. Peron agreement between the State and the Commonwealth; • any advice or report in relation to the need or otherwise for a housing subdivision at Point Peron; or • any advice or report in relation to the feasibility of the MBM project, assessing and addressing, among other things, the risk that the proponent would subdivide and sell off the land for housing but would not secure sufficient funds to build the marina, thus resulting in the failure of the MRS amendment to meet the WAPC’s stated rationale and purpose of the amendment.
It is also apparent from the documents obtained under FOI that the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage and the WAPC have been put under some pressure from the government and LandCorp to facilitate the required planning approvals. This all raises a reasonable apprehension of bias (if not actual bias) and a failure to appropriately manage conflict of interest. Unfortunately, HOPP can have no confidence in the objectivity, open-mindedness and procedural fairness of the WAPC and the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage in regard to their consideration of this MRS amendment proposal. Furthermore, HOPP contends that this is a situation where there has been distinct lack of orderly and proper planning. HOPP also refers to, and relies upon, the comments in regard to the objectivity of the WAPC in the report of Dr Linley Lutton.
What is HOPP calling for in view of these process and probity defects?
HOPP is calling for the so-called marina proposal to be abandoned and for the government to develop a world-class coastal park covering Point Peron and Lake Richmond. If the government wishes to continue its pursuit of this MRS amendment, then HOPP calls for:
• the halting of the existing MRS amendment process and the initiation of a fresh process involving independent, diligent and impartial evaluation of the proposed amendment, at arm’s length from the government proponent; and • an independent inquiry to investigate the conduct of various parties involved in this matter, with the power to call witnesses, inspect documents and make findings and recommendations.
Evaluation of the Proposed MRS amendment
The Evidence
HOPP relies on the evidence of residents and others in relation to the high amenity of the land and the loss of amenity that the MRS amendment would cause. HOPP also relies on the analysis and conclusions of a variety of highly qualified experts, whose reports are attached to this submission. This includes well respected experts in urban planning, tourism, the relationship between urban planning and health, relevant economic and environmental issues, and relevant social and cultural issues. This analysis and opinion carries considerable weight and should be accepted and acted upon, particularly given that the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage / WAPC has failed to establish any credible basis for rejecting their analysis and opinions. HOPP also relies on other information and analysis contained in this submission and its attachments.
General comments about the MRS amendment Report
The MRS amendment report provides an inadequate and misleading account of the proposed MBM development and fails to provide an adequate fair and diligent analysis of the proposed MRS amendment against the relevant planning principles and criteria. The document contains numerous glaring omissions.
Many of the views expressed in the amendment report are not substantiated or supported by rational analysis or expert opinion. The amendment report exhibits the hallmarks of a document designed to veil critical defects of the proposed MRS amendment and development it is designed to facilitate. HOPP maintains that these characteristics of the report are a symptom of bias on the part of the WAPC or, at the very least, reinforce the apprehension of bias on the part of the WAPC. This submission addresses various specific aspects of the MRS amendment report below.
Can the proposed MRS amendment be justified?
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to carefully consider the rationale and basis of the existing planning blueprint for Point Peron. Regardless of whether it is, technically, legally enforceable or not, the 1964 Commonwealth / State Point Peron agreement is of high relevance from a planning point of view because it has underpinned the planning for Point Peron for the last 50 years, reflected in for example the inclusion of the land in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park and its designation as ‘Bush Forever’.
The WAPC is now proposing a radical departure from this longstanding planning blueprint and framework. As explained above, if implemented the proposed MRS amendment and MBM development would be in fundamental conflict with the Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement. It would also be completely at odds with the planning initiatives that have been flowed from that agreement - i.e. it would cause the excision of a large amount of land from the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park and the clearing of over 40 ha of Point Peron’s ‘Bush Forever’.
From both an ethical and ‘orderly and proper planning’ point of view any departure from this longstanding planning blueprint can only be justified if it can be clearly demonstrated that such departure would result in net advantage to the community and the metropolitan region based on sound planning principles. The onus is on those proposing the change to clearly demonstrate such net advantage.
On the other hand, breaching the Commonwealth / State Point Peron agreement and departing from the longstanding planning blueprint for Point Peron in the absence of clear and compelling justification would not only be ‘disorderly’ planning but would also amount to a serious breach of public trust, undermining the public’s confidence in the planning regime and the integrity of Western Australia’s government.
Unfortunately, neither the MBM development proponent nor the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage / WAPC has conducted a due diligence comparative analysis of the options (refer section 3 above). Instead the WAPC in the MRS amendment report relies on a very superficial and unconvincing treatment of only some of the relevant considerations in its attempt to justify the proposed MRS amendment.
The true nature of the MBM development proposal
In order to properly evaluate the proposed MRS amendment, it is necessary to consider carefully the true nature of the development proposal it is said to be facilitating. The MBM proposal has changed over the years and there are now very serious doubts as to whether the marina and canal components of the development would materialise. Even if they do eventually proceed, there is great uncertainty as to what form they would take or how many years or decades into the future such construction would occur.
Substantial risk that the core purpose of the MRS amendment would not be achieved
The doubts about the marina’s feasibility means that the MRS amendment proposal is highly speculative and based on what may turn out to be a false premise and undelivered promise. If, as proposed by the WARC, the majority of the land is re-zoned Urban this would pave the way for the subdivision and sale of the land for housing, with no legally binding guarantee that the marina will ever be built. Its construction would require, among other things, that:
• the net income from sales of the land is sufficient to cover the high cost of marina construction; and • the proponents are willing and able to sink the net land sales proceeds into a marina, which appears unlikely given LandCorp’s statutory obligation to achieve a hurdle rate of return and Cedar Woods’ duties to its shareholders.
It is therefore clear that there is a substantial risk that if the proposed MRS amendment is implemented it may not achieve the core purpose and rationale of the MRS amendment and the Mangles Bay Marina development - the construction of the marina. This risk amounts to a fundamental flaw in the MRS amendment proposal because:
• the MRS amendment proposal is speculative and as such does not meet 'orderly and proper planning’ criteria; and • the amendment would not be ‘efficient and effective land use planning’, contrary to the Planning and Development Act 2005.
Has the need for a marina at Point Peron been established?
Leaving aside the substantial doubt about whether the marina would ever be built, there remains a key question - is there a demonstrated need to build the marina at this site?
In the MRS amendment report the WAPC refers to the Perth Recreational Boating Facilities Study 2008 - Technical Report No 44 and implies that this study supports the need for the marina at this site. However, this study does not recommend a marina at this site. It merely recommends a marina in Mangles Bay and refers to the two options - the MBM proposal (which it refers to as the ‘Cape Reran Tourist Park’ (sic)) and the Wanliss Street marina proposal. It does not express preference for one over the other, although it does refer to slow progress with the Point Reran proposal 'due to environmental concerns’.
It is important also to note that the study’s recommendation was made before it became clear that ‘wet excavation’ methods would be required to build the marina at the Point Reran site, meaning that construction would be a great deal slower and a great deal more costly than would have been anticipated in 2008 when the study’s authors considered the proposal. If the authors of the study had known this at the time, it is quite likely that they would not have included the Mangles Bay Marina as a practical option.
HOPP submits that the Wanliss Street location is a much better location to build a marina. HOPP relies on the opinion of University of WA urban planner Dr Linley button in this regard. He provides a compelling analysis showing why Wanliss Street is a much better site, for several reasons (refer his report at Attachment 13). The 2008 study does not contradict this view, and therefore does not assist the WAPC’s argument that the MRS amendment is justified due to the need to build a marina at this particular site; on the contrary it cannot be justified on this basis.
Unpopularity of the proposed MBM development
The evidence establishes that Point Reran is highly valued by the community as public land for recreation and nature-based activities. There is very strong public support for keeping Point Reran, including the land subject to the proposed MRS amendment, in public hands, and conserving and enhancing its natural and social values.
On the contrary, the proposed MBM development is demonstrably very unpopular; it has very little support from the general community. There is no groundswell of support for a marina at this site. On the contrary, the opposition to the proposal is growing all the time, as people gain a better understanding of the true nature of the proposed development and the doubts and risks surrounding it.
In support of these contentions HOPP refers to and relies on the following documents:
• Published correspondence and articles provided courtesy of Charles Lammers, retired naval officer of Preserve Point Peron Inc.) comprising: o approximately 160 published letters and articles between 1964 and 2010 showing support for keeping Point Peron in public hands and / or opposition to a marina development; and o published letters for and against the proposed MBM development between January 2011 and October 2015. Of these letters only 59 are for the MBM development whilst 277 are against. • The report of Dr Ron Chapman - see in particular reference to the petition in opposition to the proposal containing approximately 8,000 signatures. • The Sound Telegraph newspaper, 3 and 10 October 2015, disclosing the position of all the candidates for the City of Rockingham October 2015 elections. Of a total of 22 candidates, 15 were against the proposed MBM development, 2 were in favour, 3 abstained and 2 did not respond.
Nevertheless, the WAPC, by way of the proposed MRS amendment, seeks to impose this highly unpopular development on the people of Rockingham and Western Australia. It appears that the financial windfall to be made by the appropriation and sale of this prime public land outweighs the WAPC’s regard for public opinion.
Is there a need for a housing development at this site?
The MRS amendment report has failed to address this critical question. In fact, it has greatly downplayed the fact the housing would be the predominant type of development, even if the marina does eventually proceed. A great deal of housing lots would need to be created and sold (for a very high price) in order to have any prospect of raising the necessary finance to build a marina. Indeed, given the doubts about the marina’s feasibility, housing appears to be just about the only type of development at the site that we can be sure will occur if the development is allowed to proceed.
Despite this reality, the MBM proponents have never sought to justify the development of this public land at Point Reran on the basis that it is needed to meet a pressing demand for housing. They seem to have deliberately avoided putting forward this argument, knowing that it would not be credible. Their argument has always been that it is the marina that is needed and that is what justifies appropriating this public parkland. Similarly, the WAPC’s MRS amendment report has failed to demonstrate, or even argue, that there is a need for a housing development at this site.
Dr Linley button has carefully considered this issue in his report. He expresses the view that there is no need or justification for housing at this site. In view of the likely magnitude of the housing footprint if the development were to proceed, and the destruction of ‘bush forever’ and loss of public open space that would result, the WAPC’s failure to show the need for housing at this site is a fundamental flaw of the proposed MRS amendment and reason alone for its rejection. Taken in combination, this failure to demonstrate the need for housing at this site and for a marina at this site completely undermines the basis and rationale of the proposed MRS amendment.
Absence of evidence that the proponent has the authority from the current agencies with whom the land is vested
The WAPC has provided no evidence that the agencies who hold the tenure over the land have authorised or approved the use of the land for the purpose of the MBM development. For example, there is no evidence that the Conservation Commission has approved the transfer of land within the regional park to LandCorp.
Concerns previously expressed by the Conservation Commission (see for example the correspondence at Attachment 12) point to the fact that it has serious misgivings about the MBM proposal and would likely (justifiably) be reluctant to part with the land, especially now that it has emerged that the primary justification and stated objective for taking the land - the construction of a marina - may never be achieved, meaning that 40 ha of regional park ‘bush forever’ under the Conservation Commission’s care and management may end up being sacrificed just for the sake of a housing subdivision.
It is of concern that the MBM proposal has got this far in the absence of demonstrating to the public that the relevant agencies have formally authorised the appropriation of the land under their control. HOPP calls upon the WAPC to immediately produce evidence of such authorisation, if it exists, failing which the MRS amendment process should be halted on that ground alone.
The requirement for sustainable land use and development
A key purpose of the PDA (see section 3) is to "promote the sustainable use and development of land in the State". HOPP submits that the proposed MRS amendment promotes unsustainable land use and development, contrary to the PDA and the state’s planning policies.
The functions of the WAPC are set out in section 14 of the PDA. Functions relevant to this matter include (emphasis added):
• advising the Minister on: o the coordination and promotion of land use, transport planning and land development in the State in a sustainable manner; o the administration, revision and reform of legislation relating to land use, transport planning and land development; o local planning schemes, and amendments to those schemes, made or proposed to be made for any part of the State;
• to prepare and keep under review: o a planning strategy for the State; and o planning policies, as a basis for coordinating and promoting land use planning, transport planning and land development in a sustainable manner, and for the guidance of public authorities and local governments on those matters.
As can be seen, the PDA places considerable emphasis on the need for sustainable land development.
The State’s own definition of sustainability can be found in the State Sustainability Strategy 2003:
“Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of current and future generations through integration of environmental protection, social advancement, and economic prosperity. The definition of sustainability is very challenging. It demands that we act together, providing an integrated and mutually reinforcing approach to issues that in the past have been treated more in isolation. It implies that proposals need to begin by considering all three factors together and that trade-offs are minimised. While recognising that any steps forward require some trade-offs the Strategy seeks to enable firms, the community and government to find ‘net benefit’ in all three areas.
Sustainability is sometimes described as the ‘triple bottom line’, to reflect the importance of environmental, social and economic factors in decision making. However, the definition proposed here goes beyond the triple bottom line through emphasising the importance of integration between these factors and achieving them synergistically.”
State Planning Policy 2.6 also defines sustainability:
“Sustainability means achieving as much as possible with as little as possible. This requires current generations to minimise consumption and imports on natural and other resources in order to continue their activities in the long-term and maintain future options. It involves wealth creation, while preserving our natural, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and cultural heritage, for the benefit of current and future generations.”
On any fair and reasonable assessment, the proposed MBM development fails on all counts - economic, environmental and social - to meet the state’s own sustainability requirements. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission.
In contrast to the wealth of analysis and opinion relied upon by HOPP in support of HOPP’s contention that the proposed MRS amendment fails to meet sustainability requirements, the MRS amendment report contains only a very short paragraph addressing ‘Sustainability’, unsubstantiated by any proper analysis or expert opinion. The MRS amendment report states:
“8 Sustainability
The proposed amendment seeks to create a tourist marina precinct within the Mangles Bay locality to facilitate recreational activities, activation of the beachfront and provision of passive / active public open space. Retail / commercial development will contribute to the creation of employment opportunities for the Mangles Bay locality in accordance with sustainable environment, social and economic outcomes.”
This analysis is completely inadequate and without credibility; it is embarrassingly shallow and entirely unconvincing. Indeed, the fact that such an analysis is put forward by the WAPC in the MRS amendment report shows that the WAPC, at least in regard to this MRS amendment proposal, is simply not up to the task it is charged with under the PDA. The WAPC’s treatment of this vitally important issue is, quite frankly, of a standard that is not fitting of a government body with responsibility for planning in 2015. This reinforces concerns HOPP has raised about probity and process issues above.
Failure to conduct comparative analysis based on sustainability principles
As mentioned above, there has been a failure to conduct any comparative analysis of the MBM development option as against the option of retaining the land as part of an integrated nature-based coastal park covering all of Point Peron and Lake Richmond (Cape Peron Coastal Park option), consistent with the current planning blueprint based on the Commonwealth / State Point Peron Agreement, the Rockingham lakes Regional Park and the ‘Bush Forever’ listing.
Under the circumstances, this failure amounts to a fundamental flaw on the part of the planning process to date and is in itself sufficient reason why the proposed MRS amendment is premature and should be rejected. By way of further analysis, HOPP makes the following submissions in regard to key components against which sustainability is assessed - the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, environmental and social criteria.
Economic evaluation
As pointed out above, there has been a failure to conduct a proper economic cost / benefit analysis of the proposed MBM development, and there has been no comparative economic cost / benefit analysis of the MBM proposal as against the Cape Peron Coastal Park option. As such there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage / WAPC.
Based on its own research and expert advice HOPP submits that the proposed MBM development would result in far less net economic benefits than the Cape Peron Coastal Park option, whether or not the MBM option involves a housing development without marina or a housing development with (eventually) a marina. The Cape Peron Coastal Park option is a low risk and has great economic potential in view of current and projected tourism trends. Nature-based tourism is becoming ever more attractive and lucrative and this option is perfectly positioned to take advantage of these trends.
On the other hand, the MBM proposal would destroy this golden opportunity, all for the sake of yet another housing subdivision and the possibility (eventually) of a high cost inland marina of doubtful feasibility and high maintenance costs and risks - a marina that is not needed in this particular location and would be better built elsewhere for the reasons outlined earlier in this submission. The implementation of the proposed MRS amendment would therefore, from an economic point of view, be highly irresponsible.
Even without taking into account the net economic benefits that would accrue from its population health advantages, the Cape Reran Coastal Park option is vastly superior from an economic point of view to the MBM option. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission.
The MBM proponents have for some considerable time sought to rely on what they say is an economic study that shows the benefits the proposal would deliver. However, the proponents have steadfastly refused to release the document for public scrutiny, despite many calls for them to do so. HOPP makes the following comments in regard to this ‘phantom’ so-called economic study:
• The fact that the proponents have been unwilling to release the study means that it has not been available for public scrutiny or peer review. For this reason the report carries no weight and cannot be relied upon when considering the merits of the proposed MRS amendment. • HOPP is confident that the economic study would not withstand expert scrutiny. If it is a credible study, then why are the proponents hiding it? They appear to lack confidence in it. • Without being allowed to see it one cannot be certain, but it appears that the study is premised on the construction of the marina and fails to take account of the risk that the marina may never be constructed due to lack of feasibility and, even if it is eventually built, may take an entirely different form than originally proposed. • The study is now becoming dated and therefore fails to take account of the significant changes occurring in the Western Australian economy as a result of the cessation of the mining boom, including but not limited to a greatly reduced demand for housing. • HOPP anticipates that the study fails to take account of the adverse economic effects that the development at this site would bring, including but not limited to the adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fishing and on tourism.
Environmental Evaluation
There has been no comparative environmental appraisal of the MBM proposal as against the Cape Reran Coastal Park option. There is no doubt that, from an environmental point of view, the MBM option is profoundly inferior to the Cape Reran Coastal Park option, whether or not the MBM option involves a housing development without marina or a housing development with (eventually) a marina.
The MBM proposal would result in serious adverse environmental impacts and risks including, but not limited to:
• a development that is inconsistent and insensitive to the character and quality of the unique landscape of Point Reran; • impairment of the geomorphological and ecological values of Point Reran; • the destruction of scarce coastal ‘bush forever’, and the important habitat it provides. Such bushland and public open space will become all the more important in years to come as the population and urban development of Rockingham and Perth intensifies; • the incursion of saltwater into the aquifer, threatening nearby Lake Richmond and its highly significant Thrombolite and sedge communities, as well as adjacent native vegetation and domestic bores; • the creation and ongoing maintenance of a channel cutting off beach access along Mangles Bay and causing major loss of vital seagrass meadows and fish nurseries in Mangles Bay; • polluted, inadequately flushed artificial waterways and resulting deterioration of Mangles Bay water quality; • risk of mercury contamination cause by dredging of sediments; • adverse impacts on the Little Penguin; • risk of excessive seaweed accumulation and odour; • risk of adverse coastal processes - sedimentation in some places, erosion in others; • construction site works and their associated public exclusion, dust, noise, visual pollution and traffic impacts, estimated by the proponent to be up to 9 years in duration; and • the need for never-ending dredging, maintenance and remedial works at considerable, but yet to be determined, public expense.
These impacts and risks would be incurred all for the sake of yet another housing subdivision and the possibility (eventually) of a high cost inland marina of doubtful feasibility and high maintenance costs and risks - a marina that is not needed in this particular location and would be better built elsewhere for the reasons outlined earlier in this submission.
On the other hand the Cape Peron Coastal Park option would avoid all these adverse environmental consequences and would in fact ensure and enhance the protection of the high natural values of Point Peron. The implementation of the proposed MRS amendment would therefore, from an environmental point of view, be highly irresponsible. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission.
The lack of EPA assessment of the proposed MRS amendment and what this means
The WAPC has not conducted any environmental appraisal of the MRS amendment, nor has the EPA. Indeed, the EPA refused to take the opportunity it had to assess the MRS amendment. The WAPC seeks to rely on the ERA’S decision not to assess the amendment. Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) states:
“S 48A. Authority to decide whether or not schemes to be assessed
When a scheme is referred to the Authority under the relevant- scheme Act, the Authority shall, if it considers that the scheme — (a) should not be assessed by it under this Division, so inform in writing the responsible authority within 28 days after that referral, but may nevertheless give advice and make recommendations to the responsible authority and any other relevant person on the environmental issues raised by the scheme.”
It is very difficult to understand why the ERA failed to assess the proposed amendment. HOPP considers it certainly should have, and its failure to do so points to a serious lack of due diligence on the part of the EPA. HOPP considers that it is reasonable to infer that the EPA may have been reluctant to assess the proposed amendment because it knew that in doing so it would inevitably conclude that the proposed MRS amendment was far worse for the environment than maintaining the status quo / pursuing the Cape Peron Coastal Park option. Instead of reaching this conclusion, which it would have known would be unpalatable to the government, perhaps the EPA chose to avoid this outcome by simply refusing to assess the proposed amendment.
In any event, whatever the reason and motive of the EPA, its failure to assess the proposed amendment hinders rather than assists the proposed amendment because the WAPC cannot rely on the EPA when evaluating the proposed amendment against the sustainability and other environmental criteria set out in the PDA and in the State Planning Policies. This means that the expert opinion HOPP relies upon in this regard (as set out above) is not controverted and should be accepted and acted upon by the WAPC.
The WAPC cannot rely in this regard on the MBM proposal’s conditional environmental approvals. Under its statutory terms of reference, the PER of the MBM proposal only examined the proposal before it. It did not conduct a comparative evaluation of the environmental merits of that proposal vis a vis the merits of maintaining the status quo - i.e. retaining the ‘bush forever’, not excising the land from the regional park and generally proceeding in accordance with the longstanding planning blue print for the land and Point Peron generally (consistent with the Cape Peron Coastal Park option).
The fact that the EPA and the State and Commonwealth Environment ministers ended up providing environmental approval for the MBM proposal (subject to numerous conditions) does not mean that they concluded that the MBM proposal was a good outcome for the environment or a better environmental outcome than not proceeding with the MBM development.
Health and wellbeing
Although public health is part of the social matrix against which the amendment proposal needs to be considered, it is such an important issue that it is addressed separately here. Population health of course also needs to be taken into account from as part of the economic evaluation of the proposal. The origins of town planning are closely linked to the objective of fostering positive health outcomes / minimising negative outcomes due to environmental factors. Severe health issues associated with urban environments were a key catalyst for the emergence of town planning.
The big health problems now are not the same as they were in the past, but the planning principle remains the same and just as relevant as ever. In the current era mental illness, diabetes, obesity and other illnesses linked to environmental factors are widespread. These illnesses need to be addressed as a matter of urgency and the planning agencies have a key role to play in this.
Despite the direct correlation between urban planning and population health the WAPC has completely failed to consider or address this issue in the MRS amendment report. In view of Point Peron’s history and culture as a vital recreational and nature-based public space this failure on the part of the WAPC is very serious.
There is no doubt that the Cape Peron Coastal Park option stands head and shoulders above the MBM option from the point of view of population health net benefits. There is a considerable body of well accepted research that makes this conclusion undeniable. For this reason alone, the proposed MRS amendment should be rejected: it represents planning of the kind that undermines public health and flies in the face of internationally accepted best practice. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission.
Heritage
The subject land, and Point Peron generally, has very high heritage values. The WAPC’s failure to take account of the intrinsic natural heritage values of the site has been addressed above. The MRS report states "two Aboriginal heritage assessments have been undertaken for this land and a Section 18 application for consent to use the land has been lodged”. This is presumably a reference to section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA). An application to the minister under this section is an application for approval to destroy or damage an Aboriginal site. I he MRS amendment report fails to make this clear to the lay reader.
HOPP understands that Point Peron is of very high cultural significance to the Noongar traditional owners. The fact that the proposed MBM development would adversely impact on Aboriginal heritage is another very negative aspect of the proposed MRS amendment from a planning of point of view. The Aboriginal heritage values of Point Peron should be respected and protected, not compromised and diminished.
No proper heritage assessment appears to have been conducted in relation to non- Aboriginal heritage values that would be destroyed or diminished as an outcome of the proposed MRS amendment, including for example:
• the military and social heritage values of the RSL Caravan Park; • the heritage values of the AIW holiday camp; • the heritage values of the Alfred Hines Home; and • the overall heritage values of the Point Peron holiday camp precinct of which the Alfred Hines, AIW and RSL facilities are an integral part.
This lack of proper assessment demonstrates a lack of appreciation and respect on the part of the WAPC for these values and is another example of the WAPC’s failure to exercise due diligence. HOPP submits that the amendment would, if implemented, result in a development that is very destructive of heritage values and completely out of keeping with the character and qualities of Point Peron. On this ground alone, the proposed amendment should be rejected. The lack of due consideration of heritage values means, at the very least, that the proposed MRS amendment is premature and needs to be put on hold until a fair and diligent assessment is carried out. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission.
The proposed MRS amendment is in breach of the State’s Planning Policies
The WAPC’s assessment of the proposed MRS amendment against the state’s planning policies is very shallow and unconvincing. HOPP submits that any fair, reasonable and diligent analysis would conclude that the proposed MRS amendment does not comply with State Planning Policies 2, 2.6, 2.8 and 3. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission. In contrast the Cape Peron Coastal Park option is compliant with all state planning policies.
Strategic planning documents relied on by the WAPC
In the MRS amendment report the WAPC refers to the draft Towards Perth and [email protected] Million and Draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework documents. The WAPC seeks to rely on the latter document because ‘it identifies the amendment area as “Urban Expansion", and this amendment therefore contributes to implementing that document’s recommendations’. This argument has no credibility for all the reasons set out in HOPP’s submission to the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage date 31 July 2015 in regard to this draft document, referred to above.
Far from being of assistance to the WAPC’s argument, the identification of the land in that draft document as “Urban Expansion” appears to have been a self-serving step, in stealth, to lay the foundation for the MRS amendment now sought by LandCorp and the WAPC. The conduct exhibited raises an apprehension of bias on the part of the WAPC.
Furthermore, because the framework document was a draft only, and the public consultation process was so badly flawed, it cannot be relied on at all by the WAPC in support of the proposed MRS amendment. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is starkly at odds with the EPA’s strategic advice regarding draft Perth and [email protected] million and with numerous aspects of the State’s Planning Strategy 2050.
Failure to preserve amenity
One of HOPP’s central arguments is that the land subject to the proposed MRS amendment is a place of high amenity, appreciated greatly by a vast number of people. Furthermore, the land is an integral part of the amenity of Point Peron as a whole. Implementation of the Cape Peron Coastal Park option would preserve and enhance the amenity both of the land in question and Point Peron as a whole. On the other hand, the proposed MRS amendment would have a profoundly negative effect on the amenity of the land and Point Peron as a whole. In support of this submission HOPP refers to and relies upon the facts, analysis and opinions contained in a range of documents which were attached to the submission. Other Issues and flaws
HOPP notes that the City of Rockingham has raised a number of concerns regarding the proposed MRS amendment - refer Attachment 16, which contains letters from the City of Rockingham dated 3 December 2013, 3 December 2014, 5 June 2015 and 6 August 2015. It is clear that the City of Rockingham, with good justification, is very concerned that the MRS amendment would allow housing development to occur without any guarantee that the MRS amendment would achieve its stated purpose - the construction of the marina.
HOPP also notes the City of Rockingham’s justified concerns about taking on the management of the waterways in view of the high risks and potential for incurring crippling expenses if the marina goes ahead. This is a fundamental flaw of the proposal, and one of the main reasons why canal estates have been banned in many other jurisdictions.
There are also a number of other serious problems with the proposed MRS amendment, not the least of which relates to the location of the Point Peron sewage treatment plant, which presents an appropriate metaphor on which to end this submission.
Attachments
The following attachments, many of which were lodged as separate submissions on the amendment, were included in support of the submission and have been carefully considered by the WAPC:
Volume 1
1) HOPP submission on draft South Metropolitan Peel Sub-regional Planning Strategy 2) Dawn Jecks Affidavit, 10 November 2015 3) Ambrose Cummins Affidavit, 13 November 2015 4) Legislative Assembly Estimates Committee B – Extract from Hansard, 9 June 2015
Volume 2
5) Historical Report in relation to proposed MRS amendment 1280/41 – Mangles Bay Marina by Dr Ron Chapman (Historian) 6) Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan 7) Cape Peron Coastal Park Steering Committee submission on MRS amendment 1280/41 – Mangles Bay Marina, 19 October 2015 8) Cape Peron Community Vision Working Group’s submission to EPA, on community’s vision for Cape Peron 9) Published letters to editors and newspaper articles (1964 – 2010) relevant to proposed Mangles Bay Marina and MRS amendment. Provided by Charles Lammers of Preserve Point Peron Inc. 10) Published letters to editors from January 2011 to October 2015, for and against the proposed Mangles Bay Marina. Provided by Charles Lammers of Preserve Point Peron Inc. 11) Various correspondence relevant to proposed Mangles Bay Marina and MRS amendment. Provided by Charles Lammers of Preserve Point Peron Inc. 12) Various correspondence with the Conservation Commission regarding the proposed Mangles Bay Marina by Charles Lammers.
Volume 3
13) Planning report by Dr Linley Lutton on proposed MRS amendment 14) Report by Dr Vic. Semeniuk, Wetlands Research Association on proposed MRS amendment and reports of Dr Semeniuk, 18 April 2012 and 25 September 2005 15) Tourism Report on proposed MRS amendment and proposed Cape Peron Coastal Park by Dr Georgette Leah Burns, environmental anthropologist and tourism specialised, 8 November 2015 16) Report in relation on proposed MRS amendment by Adjunct Professor George Burns, Clinical Psychologist, 16 October 2015 17) Submission on proposed MRS amendment by Keren Geddes, Senior Child and Adolescent Clinical Psychologist, 20 October 2015 18) Open letter to Commonwealth Environment Minister Greg Hunt in relation to concerns about the impact of the proposed Mangles Bay Marina and canal development on the Little Penguin from 27 members of the academic, conservation and tourism industry, 19 December 2014 19) Submission from Cockburn Sound Management Council to EPA on Mangles Bay Marina, 23 April 2012 20) Review of proposed Mangles Bay Marina by Dr Mike Van Keulen, Murdoch University 21) Submission on proposed Mangles Bay Marina PER by Dr J. N. Dunlop, Naragebup Marine Working Group 22) Letters from City of Rockingham, 3 December 2013, 3 December 2014, 5 June 2015 and 6 August 2015 23) EPA strategic advice to the Minister for Environment, July 2015 24) Sound Telegraph article “Fishers Fear Marina Fallout”, 21 October 2015
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 405
Submitted by: Heidi Hardisty (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The clearing of vegetation to develop Perth is wrong. There needs to be a moratorium on clearing of native vegetation, in particular Bush Forever. • The proposal will require dredging which will destroy seagrasses which are important for benthic communities, fish and the food chain. There will be a negative impact and decrease of the Little Penguins. • There will be cumulative impacts on the environment which are not being considered. What impacts will there be on air and water quality, health and wellbeing etc. • The EPA’s determination on the proposal is snot supported as the board are not qualified to make such a recommendation. • The site should be retained as a park to benefit future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 406
Submitted by: Margaret Hegney (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter objects to the amendment, as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. • The site provides unstructured connection and recreation to nature with research suggesting more is required for communities. • A better option is to build a marina closer to the shopping and tourist precinct of Rockingham. Mangles Bay could remain for nature-based activities. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
The submission also included a document entitled “Putting Nature Back into Nurture: The Benefits of Nature for Children”. This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 407, 408
Submitted by: Gary Hilton, Jacqueline Hilton (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitters do not support the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. Ratepayers will need to pay for any clean-up of the site after the developer has left. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. There will be mosquito impacts such as Ross River Virus etc. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Cedar Woods have advised that the proposal is a housing development, and the marina may be developed at a later date. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. The development will take over 20 years to be finished. • The natural environment is what a person remembers on holiday, not marinas, houses etc.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 409
Submitted by: Angela Hjalmarsson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site contains Tuart trees which are unique at Cape Peron. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. Ratepayers will be paying more money to maintain the site. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. The proposal will also benefit tourism.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 410
Submitted by: Antoni Hjalmarsson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION The amendment is opposed as follows:
• The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. The increase in boats will impact on the Little Penguins. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the environment and tourism industry.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 411
Submitted by: Benjamin Hodgins (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 412
Submitted by: Jodie Holland (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. Rates will increase to maintain the marina. • There will be health risks associated with mosquito diseases. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 413
Submitted by: Defending Public Spaces
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment, and comprises a number of slides which are summarised as follows:
• WA’s economy is rapidly deteriorating. Economists and business leaders are warning that we must reduce our dependence on the resources and housing sectors. We must become more innovative and focus on exporting a more diverse range of goods and services and promote our natural assets. • Tourism has been identified as one of the biggest areas of potential export growth for Australia and Western Australia. It is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. • Extensive market research shows that the majority of tourists want nature and natural environments over all other types of attractions. • When the State Government invests in intrastate tourism (events and day tripper tourism), it is a “zero sum game” for WA’s economy and therefore a waste of taxpayers’ money. • Investing in interstate tourism is a “zero sum game” for Australia’s economy, for the same reason we must approach tourism as an export industry and focus on investing in what international tourists need and want and then spend money on attracting them to WA. • Intrastate and interstate tourists benefit from world class tourist attractions anyway. • Many believe it would be of far greater economic, social and environmental benefit to the local community and to WA, if the site were to be transformed into a world class protected area park, for nature based urban tourism and recreation. • Despite a lack of strategic planning, marketing and substandard or neglected tourist facilities in some areas, tourism still generates substantial economic activity in Rockingham. • Rockingham is a recognised urban nature-based tourism location in the Perth area. It just needs a relatively small amount of investment in tourism infrastructure and marketing, to put it on the world map. • Ecotourism in protected areas delivers 60:1 annual return on costs. A relatively small amount of investment in tourist facilities, playgrounds, interpretative signage and paths, etc., would be required. Over development of parks is unnecessary. • If designed smartly and marketed well, the Cape Peron Coastal Park could attract around a million visitors annually to Rockingham, as the WA tourism industry grows. • Cape Peron Coastal Park should be marketed as a must-see destination when visiting WA. • It just needs a facelift and a small amount of infrastructure, which does not have to be done as all at once as one big major project. It should be done in stages as and when grants and funding become available.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 414
Submitted by: Darren Jones (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The entire site should become and “A” class reserve. • The environmental approval and associated conditions will create a number of issues. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. Lake Richmond and Thrombolites will be affected. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 415
Submitted by: Julie Judkins Byrne (nearby resident) Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Environmental Concerns
The Cape Peron area is one of the few remaining areas of remnant dune landscape and vegetation in the Perth metropolitan area and as such, should be retained as an exemplar of how much of the coast looked prior to 'development'. This area has been designated as 'Bush Forever' and to lose 43 ha of this does not make sense in a world concerned about loss of natural areas and their flora and fauna. We need to be conserving as much native vegetation and natural areas for their environmental value and for future generations. We cannot regain them once they are lost. These natural areas can also act as important 'carbon sinks' to help ameliorate the effects of climate change.
They are also of value for recreation in, and connection to, the natural environment, something that educators are saying is important for all humans to have, and which my family enjoy in the area. The area was granted to the WA state government in 1964 for the purposes of 'public recreation' - it was not to be used for commercial, industry or development purposes. The proposed Mangles Bay Marina / Canals would certainly go against the ethos of that agreement, as it would be turning a public area into private and commercial usage. The extensive 'dewatering' processes needed to construct inland canals would probably destroy our underground water stores - this would then impact on all local people's garden bores, mine included, as well as risking freshwater Lake Richmond and its Thrombolites. The proposed development is very close to the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park and the seagrass meadows of Mangles Bay. I am very concerned of the impacts that this development will have on local fish nursery areas, the threatened Fairy Penguins, seals and dolphins that all live in the area and are currently an important part of the local tourism industry. It would be ironic if this development, touted as a 'tourist precinct', were to actually destroy the current tourism 'products'! I am currently undertaking a PhD in tourism research, so well aware of current issues and concerns.
Health Concerns
I have worked in the health area for most of my life and as noted above, people need to be able to recreate and relax in natural and open environments for their physical as well as mental health. We enjoy going for Walks in the Cape Peron area due to it being 'untouched'. The construction process proposed would be huge and entail a very long period of time of digging, dredging, piledriving, transporting and construction which would generate much noise, dust and traffic in the area. This would cause stress to not only local fauna, but also anyone living nearby, which includes me and my family. Other canal areas have been prone to the over-abundance of mosquitoes due to stagnant water- this is a big concern as mosquitoes can carry some seriously debilitating diseases such as Ross River Virus or Dengue Fever.
As noted above, the extensive construction period, and afterwards, would include a huge increase in traffic in the area. I live nearby and the roads in the area are already busy, especially with traffic to and from the Naval Base on Garden Island. The area is already a 'bottleneck' and with construction and the closing of the road on the east side of the Cape would be a disaster for people living on nearby streets. Potentially the construction could go on for years, and I do not see how traffic would ease up afterwards as the push is to have many people living on the canals as well as working in commercial premises planned for the area. It is already very challenging to cross Parkin Street on foot due to the volume of traffic. Such a huge increase and bottleneck of traffic, including haulage vehicles, has serious implications for generating emissions, damaging roads, increasing road accidents, noise and stress Defence Housing is also planning to house many people on the current Palm Beach Caravan Park site that they have purchased, and are going to turn into high-rise, high density housing right next to Lake Richmond and close to the planned Mangles Bay Marina. This will also add to the traffic and congestion in the area, as well as threatening Lake Richmond.
Economic Concerns
It makes no sense to force commercial developments on the far end of Cockburn Sound. It would make much more economic sense to construct the planned sea-based marina (Port Rockingham) at Wanliss Street in Rockingham. This would be right next to the current foreshore developments, so would add to those facilities and create a good flow around the coast, rather than forcing a fragmented development in a bottleneck area that is more difficult to get to, on Mangles Bay.
What would this proposed Mangles Bay Marina 'development' add that is not, or cannot be, provided by the current Rockingham foreshore? About the only thing would be some boat pens and these will be provided in abundance when the Port Rockingham marina goes ahead on Wanliss Street. There is no certainty around who is going to foot the ongoing maintenance of this proposed project. Canal developments in other parts of Australia are now banned due to ongoing expensive maintenance, plus the environmental costs that are associated. Often local ratepayers are left to pay for the upkeep of these projects, and I for one do not want that as our rates are already quite high.
There is also no clarity around whether local people may have problems with their house insurance in the future if this project goes ahead. This is in relation to increased risks of losing their groundwater and potential increased risks of flooding due to changed hydrology in the area or rising sea levels.
There is no certainty that this project, due to its huge scope and impacts, will ever be finished. This is a serious issue, as we may be left with an incomplete project that will have already destroyed the natural environment but not produced what was promised.
As a tourism researcher I am very skeptical of claims by the developer that this will be a 'tourist drawcard'. There are many marinas, and some canal developments, nearby that this one would be competing with for custom. The bulk of international visitors to Australia are seeking our unique wide open, clean, natural environments as discussed by Tourism Australia.
There's Nothing Like Australia
'There's nothing like Australia' continues to be Tourism Australia's global consumer marketing campaign highlighting some of the best attractions and experiences Australia has to offer. In 2015-16 the campaign will focus on Australia's strengths in food and wine as well as world class natural beauty which are major decision-making factors in Australia's key international tourism markets. In addition, Tourism Australia will roll out initiatives to promote Indigenous tourism and high-impact events.
There seems to have been a shift in the marketing of Australia more recently from my observation, as there has been a shift in where most international tourists are coming from. There has been a decline in traditional markets such as the US, New Zealand, the UK, Japan - and increasing numbers coming from China & India. There has also been a decline in visitation to some regional areas linked to this, and parts of Queensland have had substantial decreases in visitors. Some types of visitors are keener to go outside urban or built-up areas than others. Tourism Australia warns against the attitude of 'build it and they will come', as decisions need to be made on building infrastructure on sound research, to avoid spending money on 'white elephants'. In some earlier work, Jennifer Craik outlined that in Queensland developers often cited 'tourism' as the reason to build something, whether in fact it was ever going to be for tourists, and most ended up being exclusive residential developments. It was more about getting something rapidly 'developed' so that developers could make money, for short-term economic gain. This often overlooked or ignored cultural, social or environmental impacts.
An Alternative
This area has historically been a popular place for recreation and holidays for many West Australians. The current areas of Cape Peron with caravan parks and camps could easily be improved and allow provision for the general public to stay there, with minimal impact on the environment.
We do not need more marinas, canals and exclusive housing, especially if they are going to be built inland with huge loss of bushland. The surrounding areas are already built up and need green recreation spaces. Cape/Point Peron needs to be classified as an A-Class Reserve in order to be funded to be conserved, preserved and sensitively developed as Bold Park, Rottnest Island and Kings Park are, as an asset for future generations of Western Australians and global citizens.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 416
Submitted by: Rodney A Kemp (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The Federal Department of the Environment’s “Climate change risks to Australia’s coasts” refers to a sea level rise of 1.1 m, rather than the current 0.9 m. • The Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance’s (CSCA) “Coastal Vulnerability Study” refers to high present inundation risk for areas (including parts of the amendment) in the City of Rockingham. • The CSCA refers to the amendment being within a vulnerable zone. Therefore, avoidance of future risk is the most cost effective adaptation response.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 417
Submitted by: Allison Lamont (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Nature is what tourists like to see, as they are unspoilt new areas which create long memories. No one remembers commercial properties or shops. • The site should be protected for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 418
Submitted by: Matthew Lewis (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as there is no sense in destroying the environment for canals. The marina should be located further away near the grain terminal. The marina should also be of a sufficient size.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 419
Submitted by: Lynn MacLaren MLC
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
State Planning Policy 2 - Environment and Natural Resources
SPP 2 aims to integrate environment and natural resource management with broader land use planning and decision-making and protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment/This includes the requirement that planning schemes should protect nature reserves, conservation parks or other reserves and regionally significant vegetation within the Swan Coastal Plain area identified in Bush Forever. However, in direct contradiction to SPP 2, the Mangles Bay Marina is proposed within the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park and will lead to the removal of 43 ha of Bush Forever land. SPP 2 also requires planning decisions "seek to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts, directly or indirectly, on areas of high biodiversity or conservation value as a result of changes in land use or development". The proposed inland marina, in effect a canal estate, does not minimise impacts on biodiversity values within the development footprint, rather it completely removes them.
Rather than help to achieve SPP 2's objective of "establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative conservation reserve system throughout the State for flora, fauna habitat, landscapes, waterways, estuaries and wetlands", this proposal destroys some of that conservation reserve system and directly undermines WAPC's initiatives in the 1990’s to protect the area.
Rather than meet SPP's aim to "safeguard and enhance linkages between terrestrial and aquatic habitats which have become isolated, including the re-establishment of habitat corridors", this proposal endangers the delicate balance of Lake Richmond, Perth's deepest freshwater lake and its surrounding ecosystem.
Rather than "assist the return of areas of high biodiversity conservation value to the public estate or otherwise ensure the protection of high biodiversity conservation values through mechanisms including planning controls or conservation covenants" this proposal does exact the opposite.
In summary, this proposal is completely at odds with SPP 2 and should be rejected on these grounds alone.
State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning
The objectives of SPP 2.6 include:
“ensure the identification of appropriate areas for the sustainable use of the coast for housing, tourism, recreation, ocean access, maritime industry, commercial and other activities; provide for public coastal foreshore reserves and access to them on the coast; and protect, conserve and enhance coastal zone values, particularly in areas of landscape, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, indigenous and cultural significance.”
Mangles Bay, in a highly sensitive and precious coastal area, within a regional park and on Bush Forever land, is a clear-cut case of inappropriate and unsustainable use of the coast and fails SPP 2.6 on these grounds.
It is striking that a far more appropriate location for a marina to meet SPP 2.6's objective of providing ocean access via provision of a marina is available via the proposed Wanliss Street marina site, which involves private rather than public land, is in a more functional deep-water area of Mangles Bay and on the preliminary evidence at least, appears a far less environmentally sensitive location. In the interest of good planning, the WAPC should be recommending the Wanliss Street marina option is pursued rather than Mangles Bay Marina, as this would potentially meet SPP 2.6.
Coastal Processes and Climate Change
SPP 2.6 calls for new development to be avoided within areas identified to be affected by coastal hazards including inundation and erosion. The Rockingham area has been identified in national and local studies as being one of the most vulnerable locations to the risks posed by climate change, with the Peron Naturalist Partnership involving local government organisations finding the region will lose a 200 m wide strip along the whole extent of the coastline due to erosion. SPP 2.6 also states that new coastal protection works are not permitted, except where such works are considered only after all other options for avoiding and adapting to coastal hazards have been fully explored. However, the proposed marina proposes "protection works within the marina design" including groynes and buried seawalls. In other words the proposed development is completely at odds with SPP 2.6 in two key ways.
I also note that as evidenced by the application of DCP 1.8 Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments to this proposal, the WAPC and City of Rockingham consider the proposed Mangles Bay Marina to be a canal estate. Canal estates have been banned in Victoria and New South Wales because of concerns about the impacts on them of storm surge and sea level rise as a result of climate change and because canal estates are highly complex and their environmental impacts difficult to manage. The proposed Mangles Bay inland marina will take 20 years to construct. During this period the impacts of climate change are likely to be more marked and projections for sea level rise revised; even during the period it is being constructed, this proposal may become clearly inappropriate for this vulnerable coastal location.
State Planning Policy 3 - Urban Growth and Settlement
SPP 3 aims to manage the growth and development of urban areas in response to the social and economic needs of the community and in recognition of relevant climatic, environmental, heritage and community values and constraints. This includes "protecting biodiversity and areas of environmental significance and promoting the concept of an interlinked system of regional and local open space".
As outlined above, the proposed inland marina will destroy biodiversity and areas of great environmental significance. In obvious and outright contradiction to SPP 3 it will also see 43 ha of publicly-owned Bush Forever green space removed from public access. This is despite overwhelming evidence of the health and economics benefits to communities of protecting and enhancing public green space and the projected strong population growth in Rockingham. During just the proposed 20-year construction timeframe for the proposed marina, the population within the City Rockingham is forecast to grow by 62%, from 124,000 now to 201,000 by 2036. This extraordinarily fast-growing population deserves its future access to natural green spaces to be protected, not 'sold off for this dubious project and 'cash grab' by the State Government.
Directions 2031 and beyond and beyond / State Planning Strategy 2050 / draft Perth and [email protected] Million
The State Government's key strategic planning documents including Perth and [email protected] Million; State Planning Strategy 2050 and Directions 2031 and beyond and beyond repeatedly emphasise the need to enhance and protect biodiversity, natural spaces and protect long term viability and liveability, especially for wetlands, coastal areas and areas with high biodiversity values. This proposal is in overt, direct contention with all those stated intentions.
Proponent has Not Followed Development Control Policy 1.8 - Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments
Section 5 of DC 1.8 requires proponents to conduct preliminary consultation with all affected authorities relating to a proposed canal estate and/or artificial waterway, such as the proposed Mangles Bay Inland Marina. Section 5.1 specifies that at the preliminary consultation stage, proponents should provide the following information in order for informed discussions to take place between them and local government:
"a costed 25-year maintenance plan that includes: (i) costs of maintenance, dredging (including dredge spoil treatment, disposal and management), environmental monitoring and management (including contingency management strategies) to be implemented if environmental quality objectives are not met, and maritime structure maintenance; (ii) sources of funding; and (iii) obligations of the proponent, local governments, lot owners and other relevant State government agencies."
In October 2015 the proponent asked City of Rockingham to accept formal management of the proposed inland marina's waterways. Yet the proponent has failed to give the City adequate information about what this would cost, including a 25-year plan. To quote the City of Rockingham Mayor in minutes of a Council meeting on 27 October 2015:
"The (WAPC Canal Estate and Waterways) Policy states that the proponents shall provide projected short and long-term costs related to capital works and maintenance for local government assessment and that the matter of waterways management needs to be resolved prior to the land being rezoned.
"At this time, the City has not been presented with sufficient information from the proponents, nor has it made a decision as to the economic viability of the proposal."
I submit that it is extremely alarming and evidence of poor process that submissions are being called on this MRS amendment when these costs and plans for the proposed development management remain so completely unknown or secret. All planning assessment and approvals relating to the development proposal including the proposed MRS amendment should be put on hold until such time as the proponent meets the requirements under Section 5 of DC 1.8 to disclose the above information to the City of Rockingham and other authorities. If the proponent can't do that then the project and the proposed MRS amendment should be rejected. I suggest that the proponent's omission to do this at this time, and the secrecy in general about the project's supposed economic costs and benefits are indicators that this project is far more problematic and unsound than the proponent's publicity material indicates.
Breaches Commonwealth and State of Western Australia Agreements
The proposed amendment would directly breach agreements signed between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia on future uses of the land, specifically:
• 1964: A 170 ha parcel of land at Point Peron was transferred from the Commonwealth to the State of Western Australia on the condition that it be preserved as a reserve and used only 'for recreation and/or park lands'. This agreement was signed between then Prime Minister John Gorton and then Acting Premier of Western Australia David Brand. The case was based on the loss of Garden Island (Class A reserve off the coast of south metropolitan Perth) to the Navy.
• 1968: The Prime Minister informed the State Government that the land must not be used for private industrial, commercial or residential development.
Lack of Evidence to Support Claimed Economic Benefits
2-Year-Old Mangles Bay Economic Study Still Secret
The proponent has repeatedly avoided making the supposed economic case for the marina, referred to as the Mangles Bay Economic Study, available for public scrutiny, despite the study having been completed in early 2013. We are told that the economic study will be released some time during 2016, by which time it will be three years old. This seriously weakens any claims by the proponent about the imagined benefits of the proposal.
What is clear, however, from publicity statements made by the proponent (albeit without any supporting evidence) is that imagined 460 jobs and $1.3 billion raised by the development will only occur over a 20-year timeframe. There appears to be no guarantee or promise that the construction jobs would go to people who live in and near Rockingham, however, it is likely firms across Perth and South-West will get this work, if it proceeds.
City Of Rockingham Economic Strategy Not Reliant On This proposal
The Mangles Bay Inland Marina proposal only rates a mention, along with the Wanliss Street marina proposal, in the City of Rockingham's Economic Development Strategy, released January 2014. It does not feature as a key component of any one of the report's 10 key recommendations, indicating that as far as the City of Rockingham is concerned, the marina proposal does not provide vital economic benefits to the region.
Of note, the City's Economic Development Strategy makes special mention of the City of Rockingham's Community Plan and the Community Aspirations expressed therein. These include: 'that coastal and bushland reserves are well utilised and managed in a way that preserve them for future generations to enjoy' and that 'planning system acknowledge and mitigate the impacts of climate change'.
A Comparable Development at Port Coogee is Struggling
Heralded as Australia's largest coastal marina development, the Port Coogee development on the coast just 5 km south of Fremantle (and much closer to Perth's business centres than this proposed marina) has failed to meet sales expectations. Australind started development of the 85 ha marina and residential development in 2006 with the intention it would lead to a 300-pen marina, 1,100 apartments, 4,000 residents and 12,000 m2 of retail space and have an 'end value' of $2 billion. However, sales have been sluggish and nine years on, there is little to no retail activity, and countless empty apartments and blocks of land. The marina looks perennially under-utilised, as do the surrounding streets.
I urge the WAPC, along with the City of Rockingham and State Government decision- makers, to visit Port Coogee and examine its performance believing any claims about the supposed economic benefits of the Mangles Bay Marina proposal.
A Simple a Cost-Benefit Analysis Favours an Alternative Developed by Local Community
In striking contrast to the marina proponent, the community group Hands Off Point Peron (HOPP) has provided a clear and convincing economic case for an alternative development of the Mangles Bay Marina site and surrounding Cape Peron area. This involves enhancement and protection of existing natural values as a world class eco-tourism venture, building on nearby Penguin Island's existing performance as WA's 10th most popular tourism destination and Point Peron's own remarkably untapped potential as a nature tourism destination. Using publicly available data for WA's most popular visitor destination, King's Park, the HOPP group calculates that if eight per cent of Kings Park's six million annual visitors visited Point Peron, it would raise $500 million over 10 years, and $ 1 billion over 20 years, for the Rockingham region, over and above the economic benefits already flowing from visitors to Penguin Island. HOPP estimates the cost of creating a Cape Peron Coastal Park to attract this level of visitation would be $8-10 million.
The above model contrasts strongly with what I can glean about the economic model for the proposed inland marina. To date Cedar Woods has received $3.7 million of public funds to project manage the Mangles Bay Marina proposal. LandCorp has been allocated another $20 million over for years to promote it - for an eventual return over 20 years estimated by the proponents to be $1.3 billion. In other words, while both HOPP and the proponent's figures require verification, it is entirely feasible that HOPP's community-endorsed, environmentally sound alternative to the inland marina proposal will provide far more public economic benefits, particularly for the Rockingham region, than the marina at a tiny fraction of the marina's cost.
Big Costs, Long Construction Timeframe of Marina proposal
Significant costs of the marina proposal to be resolved include a major sewage realignment, realignment of the main road to Point Peron which will need to skirt around the edge of the inland marina and ongoing management and maintenance costs. I understand this amounts to tens of millions of dollars, over and above the cost of the proposed inland marina project.
A Key Justification for the Development (More Boat Facilities) Questionable
An increase in boat pens of up to 500 to meet growing demand for recreational boating facilities has been cited as a primary reason for the marina. Yet it remains unclear at what date within the proposed development's 20-year timeframe the new pens will be available, nor how many will be available to the public, given the marina will be built in a location already used by boating and angling clubs who have been promised pens in the new marina, and given some pens in the new marina will likely be sold with new housing lots.
The proponent argues that the existing swing moorings in Mangles Bay cause scarring of the bay's seagrass beds and the marina will fix this problem - yet mooring scars can be, and have been, improved by improved mooring design.
I urge WAPC to investigate exactly how many new publicly available boat storage locations (be it moorings or pens et cetera) will be created by the proposed marina versus how many exist already. I suspect there will be little or no net increase. If so, the main justification for this extraordinarily damaging ill-planned proposal is discredited.
Updated Strategic Planning For Cockburn Sound Urgently Needed
As strongly argued by the Cockburn Sound Management Authority and the WA Fishing Industry Council in submissions to the PER, the location of this marina in Mangles Bay will obliterate an unusually vibrant and healthy fish nursery of State-wide significance particularly for whiting, such as King George whiting. The State's leading seagrass, fish and Little Penguin research scientists are united in condemning the locating of a marina in this particular location. Seagrass is notoriously difficult and costly to replant and there is little evidence to support the proponent's claim that the 5 ha of high-value, thriving seagrass ecosystem to be removed to make way for this marina can be replicated elsewhere.
The marina proposal should be assessed in the context of other future developments for Cockburn Sound including a proposed Outer Harbour at Kwinana. An Outer Harbour at a location that contains less seagrass and is not known as an important fish nursery makes infinitely more sense than the unwanted, outdated and unjustified proposal for an inland marina at Mangles Bay.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 421
Submitted by: Gunhild Marchant (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. The site should be retained and not developed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 422
Submitted by: Sunny Miller (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • Acid sulphate soils may not be management in marinas because of the complex biogeochemical and hydrodynamic processes that might occur. • There are the potential for acid sulphate soils to occur and will threatened the Thrombolites, the earthworks are not worth the risk. • The flushing of acidic soils into ground and surface water will cause a range of issues and damage to pipes etc. • The site has health and wellbeing benefits which should be retained.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 423
Submitted by: Shaun Mitchell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as seagrasses will be destroyed which are vital to fish species. Lake Richmond may also be at risk from salinity.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 424
Submitted by: Clint Nash (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Lake Richmond may be impacted. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 425
Submitted by: Dr Teresa Noakes (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• No matter how many management plans there are the environment will be impacted. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc. • There will be mercury contamination. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • The Thrombolites will be affected. • Canal developments are not supported because of their impacts. The site should be retained for future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 426
Submitted by: Levon Joy Oglvie (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as it will impact on the Little Penguins and the environment. There will be an increase in boats and associated affects. The coastal park option is a better proposal.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 427
Submitted by: Susan Pippet (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as the proposal will impact on the environment and will only benefit the wealthy. The native flora and fauna need to be protected.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 428
Submitted by: Michael Powell (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission enjoys Cape Peron because of the quality of the surrounding nature. They are unemployed take great comfort in going to the Cape for a stroll. All issues and concerns become a distance memory including tourists.
This area is frequented by people with disabilities or who those have unfortunately succumb or who are currently going through mental concerns be it depression, anxiety and alike. It makes you feel happy which apparently scientific evidence supports.
It is a wonderful feeling that we have our own Kings park upon our doorstep. It would be great if the site could be included in the Cape Peron Coastal Park. The development will completely ruin the area.
The wildlife, flora, fauna and sea life etc. do not have such an avenue of address. Rockingham is the home of the little Penguin. We have signage associating Rockingham with the Penguins. All bring tourists and the tourist dollar and beautiful memories. Totally against a marina/residential development. Why not give greater consideration to the area forming part of the Rockingham foreshore?
The Council has the known as Rockingham penguins as artwork, as they live and breed here. Do all that you can to consider the effects of such land/coastal and waterway erosion will have upon "Our Penguins" and the many other inhabitants. A coastal park will generate the right attention.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 429
Submitted by: Anne Riordan (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation (and education) purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The natural habitat will be destroyed in order to accommodate a canal development. The opportunity for unstructured recreation will be diminished. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and stabilising the environment.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 430
Submitted by: Dr Elizabeth Rippey (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has also been used for research purposes over a number of years. • Point Peron is the only rocky peninsula between Cape Naturaliste and Wedge Island. • Land will be sold to individual owner, so the land gets transferred from Public to private ownership. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 431
Submitted by: Brian Rodgers (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • It is unclear what public benefits there are to transferring the land to a marina development. • The community known the site as Point Peron and not Mangles Bay, so people have not been able to comment on the amendment properly.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 433
Submitted by: Craig Saleeba (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is not supported as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • Mangles Bay is one of a few shore access crabbing grounds in the area. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks etc. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 434
Submitted by: Susana Christina Schmidt (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter supports the foreshore development plan and that the City of Rockingham has been working on. The Mangles Bay Marina project does not fit in with the foreshore development plan. It distracts and takes business and resources from the foreshore area.
The Rockingham foreshore area has existing facilities, parks, beautiful beaches, trees and a great array of businesses. There is still is room for more businesses, services, attractions, cafes, shops etc in the same foreshore area. Trying to attract businesses away from the foreshore area would be detrimental.
Do not agree with the City of Rockingham accepting responsibility for the management and upkeep of the waterways. The marina will most likely have drainage problems and the maintenance will cost a lot and will be a financial burden on all ratepayers. The State Government should know better, given Busselton and Yunderup marinas. As a ratepayer opposed to the City being made financially responsible for anything to do with the Mangles Bay Marina. Boat owners can go to the Port Coogee Marina and if they are looking for residential land, it's all there.
The State Government has no authority to sell the "bush forever public land", because it was gifted to the State to remain "public land" and for "public use”. Legally, this can be challenged in the Courts.
Encourage the State to come up with a plan to make this area into a Kings Park of the South. The plan could also incorporate the beaches of Shoalwater, Mersey Point and Penguin Island.
The land should not be disturbed. Aboriginal people have cared for this land for thousands of years and should not be disturbed. To dig a huge hole makes no sense and goes against all ancestral beliefs, common sense and all scientific/environmental evidence.
Having such a major development positioned so close to the Australian Navy Base seems to be strategically short sighted from a security point of view.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 435
Submitted by: Dr Elizabeth Sinclair (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is in conflict with the 1964 Federal State Point Peron Land Agreement, which stipulates Point Peron's use be 'restricted to a reserve for recreational and/or Park lands' and that the land must not be used 'for private industrial, commercial or residential development'. This area provides a balance between open space and biodiversity conservation.
Keep Cape Peron Ecosystem Intact
Point Peron comprises most major landforms from the Guilderton to Cape Naturalist sub- region in one location. The area is a biodiversity hotspot and important sheltering and foraging ground for megafauna, e.g. Little Penguins and sea lions. The high level of biodiversity, range in landforms and dynamic coastal processes means that Point Peron is used as an educational site for high schools, universities.
Bush Forever
Bush Forever was a strategic plan for the conservation of bushland that will conserve biological diversity. It was set up to identify and protect areas of regionally significant bushland/wetlands. Given the location of Point Peron, there could be a better future for Point Peron, the people of Rockingham and all Metropolitan Perth if the area was a coastal and marine park.
Direct Impact to Seagrass and Marine Ecosystem
Approximately 77% of seagrass meadows have been lost within Cockburn Sound since 1967. This has had an impact on local and health of the Sound. This proposal removes a further 5.6 ha and will impact on the remaining already meadows. Mangles Bay is identified as one of only two areas in Cockburn Sound where Environmental Quality Guidelines are being exceeded for nutrient enrichment.
The proposed rezoning and development of land impact on seagrass meadows that survive the dredging. The proposed development would lead to further loss of seagrass meadows. Given the importance of these meadows to the local area, such losses may reduce environmental, economic and social benefits.
Poor Outlook for Meadow Restoration
The poor health of seagrass is due to poor water flow flushing, and water flow in the canal will be low, creating its own set of health hazards. The seagrass meadow also has significant damage from boating and mooring. A small 3 ha seagrass restoration project was successful within Cockburn Sound.
Parts of the restoration site were unable to be successfully replanted for unknown reasons. This type of restoration is expensive and requires donation from another meadow and the local habitat is very different to that within Mangles Bay.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 436
Submitted by: Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The submission seeks to remove part of Bush Forever Site 268 from Lot 3 Rowley Road, Mandogalup. Lot 3 Rowley Road is proposed to be used for sand extraction.
Lot 3 is of State importance as it is identified in State Planning Policy 2.4 – Basic Raw Materials as “regionally significant”. The Department of Mines and Petroleum considers the site be a regionally significant sand resource.
A flora and vegetation survey was undertaken for Lot 3, with vegetation ranging from degraded to very good (similar to the Mangles Bay MRS amendment). The submitter has previously proposed that Lot 2 Rowley Road, Mandoglaup be included in Bush Forever, in exchange for Bush Forever being removed from Lot 3 – this was not supported by the WAPC.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report. Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 437
Submitted by: Anita Staude (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 438
Submitted by: Dr Jim Y Tiao (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the proposed amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. Other Bush Forever sites would be jeopardised by this proposal. • The proposal will create financial issues for the City of Rockingham. The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 439
Submitted by: Wayne Taberne (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submitter does not support the amendment as the marina should be at the Rockingham foreshore. The environmental qualities of the site should be preserved.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 440
Submitted by: Pauline Tinnock (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The amendment is opposed as the land should be retained for the conservation of the environment and for future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 441
Submitted by: Claire Turrell (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. Rates will increase. • The site could be used for ecotourism purposes which would protect the environment. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The alternative marina site at Alexandra Street is preferable.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 442, 443
Submitted by: Leah Turrell, Robert Turrell (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted (poisoned) by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments have a lot of issues and need to be maintained. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The natural wildlife will be impacted by the proposed development. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • There will be issues with the lack of tidal movements with the construction of a marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 444
Submitted by: Jonathan Waller (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. Ecotourism is a more lucrative business opportunity for the site which doesn’t destroy the environment. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. Essentially tourism would be affected. • There are better options for the site which should be considered.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 445
Submitted by: Natalie Wallin (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it is a vital habitat for penguins and other wildlife. A coastal park (and associated amenities) should be developed at the locality.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 446
Submitted by: Water Corporation
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The Water Corporation advises as follows:
The Urban Deferred area within the Point Peron Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) buffer is based on the buffer being modified or removed in the near future. The Corporation has no plans to decommission or move the WWTP.
The Corporation recommends that the amendment be modified by removing the Urban Deferred area. If the Urban Deferred area is to remain, then the Corporation requests that the existence of the WWTP buffer be acknowledged and that any future proposal to lift the Urban Deferment be on the basis that the land use within the buffer area will be restricted to a compatible, non-odour sensitive land use.
The Corporation recommends that the amendment be modified by including a strip of land, mostly abutting the proposed ORR reserve, as Public Purposes - WSD to reflect the required infrastructure corridor that will accommodate the Corporation’s infrastructure, including the SDOOL pipelines. The size of the infrastructure corridor reserve will need to be finalised when the design for the relocated Corporation assets is undertaken by Cedar Woods and LandCorp.
Water
The amendment area can be served from the Tamworth Gravity water scheme. Reticulated water is currently available to the subject area, but due to the proposed development, upgrading of existing works may be required. Once the actual demand requirements are known, the Corporation will review the current planning and determine the need and extent of upgrades. All water main extensions must be laid within the existing and proposed road reserves in accordance with the Utility Providers Code of Practice.
The existing 460 mm diameter water main to the Garden Island Naval Base and other existing reticulated services will need to be relocated. There is also the reuse infrastructure that is to be constructed in and needs to be allowed for in the infrastructure corridor reserve.
Wastewater
The amendment area falls within the Rockingham Sewer District. There is no permanent pump station for the catchment. Current planning indicates that a wastewater pump station will be required near the centre of the marina site and will require land to be provided for works and the odour buffer. The extent of the buffer should be determined at the planning/design stage to ensure that only compatible land uses within the buffer. A route for the pump station pressure main should be in the form of a road reserve.
The adjacent residential area is currently serviced by a vacuum sewer system. The existing vacuum pump station and buffer is on the land and will need to be protected. Only compatible, non-odour sensitive land uses should be located within the buffer.
The WWTP is located adjacent to the Mangles Bay Marina, near the north western corner of the subject site. The Corporation has determined the buffer distance, as a minimum separation to allow odours to disperse without impacting on sensitive land uses. Only compatible, non-odour sensitive, land uses should be located within the buffer.
There are no plans to decommission the WWTP and no works planned that will reduce the odour. It is financially beneficial for the State Government and the community as a whole to keep the Point Peron WWTP. The site will continue indefinitely to also accommodate the existing transition tower and bypass facilities for the ocean outfall, and a possible upgraded transition tower and other works which are also a potential release point for odours.
The Dalyellup and Gordon Road WWTP’s buffers are shown in the respective Region Schemes as Special Control Area’s. If the MRS had the same provisions, the Water Corporation would encourage the WWTP buffer to be shown in the MRS.
The existing 450 mm Seabrook Avenue wastewater pressure main traverses the amendment site, along the northern boundary and will need to be relocated within the new infrastructure corridor reserve.
The existing 1400 mm SDOOL1 conveys treated wastewater for over 40% of the Perth metropolitan area. It is currently protected by the existing Corporation reserve that traverses the Mangles Bay Marina site. It will need to be relocated into the new infrastructure corridor reserve. The 450 mm wastewater pressure main that is located in the existing reserve will need to be relocated.
The proposed SDOOL2 project was planned to be partly located in existing Corporation reserve and is in 3 sections. The Corporation could proceed with the construction of the Section 1. Section 2 will be deferred until Cedar Woods/LandCorp has completed the design and obtained. Section 3 will be constructed at a later date. There is also the proposed SDOOL3, needs to be allowed for in the new infrastructure corridor reserve.
Drainage
The Rockingham Main Drain (MD) flows into Mangles Bay via Lake Richmond. A section of drain traverses the amendment area. The relocation of the drain, the outfall arrangements and their environmental implications on Lake Richmond will need to be considered and resolved by the proponent to the satisfaction of the Corporation. The proponent will need to consider the effect of sea level rise due to climate change on the Rockingham MD and Lake Richmond. The Corporation also advised of matters relating to the approved DWMS.
Land Matters
The Corporation has a reserve protecting infrastructure traversing the amendment site. This Corporation reserve is required to protect, the existing and planned strategic infrastructure. The reserve allows the Corporation immediate access to the strategic infrastructure, for normal operational requirements and in the event of an emergency event.
Any requirements to relocate or realign the reserve (and associated infrastructure) must include the provision of a suitable reserve. All the assets to be included in the new infrastructure corridor reserve will help determine its width.
The developer is responsible for establishing the revised new infrastructure corridor reserve, including land assembly, community consultation, and provision of the reserve to the Corporation. Also, tenure must allow the Corporation immediate access during emergency events and access for operational requirements.
The Corporation agrees to the conceptual design provided by the developer for the relocated infrastructure corridor reserve. However, there are some issues to be resolved, such as the slope of the side batters and the infrastructure corridor width and tenure. The size of the infrastructure corridor reserve will need to be finalised when the design for the relocated Corporation assets is undertaken by the developers.
General Comments
The amendment should refer to the Corporation’s assets and how these are going to be protected or relocated. The requirement to make the changes is due to impacts from the proposed marina. The Corporation requires the developer to fund and arrange all, designs, approvals and construction of all assets impacted by the development.
The developer is expected to provide all water and sewerage reticulation. A contribution for water and sewerage headworks will be required. The developer may be required to fund new works or the upgrading of existing works and protection of all works. Any temporary works needed are required to be fully funded by the developer. The Corporation may require land being ceded free of cost. The Corporation wishes to continue working with the developers to assist with the establishment of the marina and the relocation of assets, and the construction of new Corporation assets.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 447
Submitted by: Justin Watts (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 448
Submitted by: Andrew John Warmouth (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The ongoing costs and impacts of canals and their maintenance are unknown. • Canal lots will have issues associated with sea level rise and climate change and could create a liability for the Commission. • The construction of a sea facing grown creates a physical barrier and is not in the best interests of the public.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 449
Submitted by: Terry Webster (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The peninsula of Rockingham is not a suitable location for a marina. • There is a natural green corridor for native flora and fauna and Mangles Bay is a tourism area which assists businesses. • The area would be better or environmental tourism. This would enhance the community and peoples’ experiences. • A marina could be built in the local area, but it should be open for all persons to use. A better location could be the Rockingham foreshore or Port Kennedy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 450
Submitted by: Gillian White (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows: • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • There will be a loss of beachfront use and amenity in the locality. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. The Little Penguin was excluded from the Federal assessment of the site despite scientific evidence presented to the Minister for the Environment. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 451
Submitted by: Kelli McCreery (Wildflower Society of WA)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Rezoning Of Bush Forever Site
Bush Forever is the culmination of a lengthy and exhaustive process to identify regionally significant vegetation within the Perth Metropolitan Region. Bush Forever sites represent a minimum requirement for reservation of vegetation. The Wildflower Society of WA opposes any rezoning of Bush Forever sites.
Inappropriate Application of Planning Processes to Justify project
It is inappropriate to use a draft planning process and an unratified zoning category ("Urban Expansion") to justify the amendment. It questions the independence of the process. Bush Forever is a valid zoning under the MRS, and there is no justification for a draft in-progress planning process to have precedence.
Applying statements from SPP 2.8 to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is in appropriate is disingenuous. The amendment is in contravention of SPP 2.8, which was to identify and protect regionally representative vegetation within the Perth Metropolitan Region.
The Strategic Assessment of the Perth and Peel Region aims to prioritise the protection of large remnants of vegetation. This site represents one of the few remaining large areas of intact near coastal vegetation in the Perth Metropolitan Region.
Management and Mitigation Claims
The conditions imposed in Ministerial Statement No 974 regarding monitoring and rehabilitation are standard recommendations. These objectives are unattainable and unregulated, due to a lack of departmental capacity.
Coastal vegetation is particularly vulnerable to fragmentation and edge effects, due to the fragility of the soil surface and its tendency to become weed infested. The idea that you can further fragment coastal vegetation and maintain its current condition is not realistic. Let alone 'improve' on it as is claimed in the rehabilitation commitments.
Even coastal vegetation with dedicated management staff and/or friends groups fail to maintain fragmented vegetation in good condition. Have standard management and mitigation measures actually been effective in the past.
The only valid way to retain coastal vegetation is to keep large intact areas with a low edge to area ratio. Large intact areas of coastal vegetation are rare. The claim that vegetation complexes and ecological communities are well represented elsewhere does not take into account the condition of most of these near coastal remnants. This site represents a rare large area of intact near-coastal vegetation.
The Thrombolites at Lake Richmond are a rare life form limited to very few locations and have worldwide significance. The lake and surrounds supports TEC. This project has the potential to impact the hydrology of Lake Richmond. The hydrology baseline studies and risk assessment and management commitments through the EIA process were inaccurate and inadequate.
Conservation Significant Vegetation
This site consists of an interconnected mosaic of Priority Ecological Communities and TECs. It represents conservation significant vegetation in a continuous and large intact remnant that will be greatly diminished by fragmentation. To isolate a plant community (TEC 30a) and claim that this represents protection, fails to acknowledge basic of ecological processes, such as edge effects and connectivity.
The amendment contains a bias that is inappropriate for what should be an independent report. It is clearly advocating in favour of the amendment and this is not professional.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 452, 453
Submitted by: Emma Boogaergt, Humphrey Boogaerdt (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as the site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. More than 20 years of construction will impact on the site.
The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The Little Penguin, Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 454
Submitted by: Raymond Brown (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected by salinity. • The proposal will likely require to be maintained which will be costly to Government, particularly given other similar proposals.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 455
Submitted by: Samantha Carson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• There are too many canals, and more are not needed for tourism. • Tourists enjoy recreation activities in the outdoors. This is a better solution which will cost less. The environment will be better protected. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 456
Submitted by: Nicoletta Ciffolilli (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development. The Little Penguin, Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 457
Submitted by: Raymond & Brenda F Cormack (nearby residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments are not supported because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 458
Submitted by: Di Dodds (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site is not appropriate for canals and will cause flushing issues. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations. The penguins are a tourist attraction. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing and will take years to be developed. • The site should be retained as a coastal park.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 459
Submitted by: Vicki Anne Foster (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. The proposed properties could become unsaleable. • Lake Richmond and associated Thrombolites will be affected. • Global warming will cause sea levels to rise and therefore a marina is not appropriate. Similar proposals have been banned elsewhere in Australia.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 460
Submitted by: Sandy Harper (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Boat pens and a marina are required, as there a lot of people own boats in this locality. However, canals and homes are not supported. • The site should form part of a coastal park which can be used by all persons and future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 461
Submitted by: Bruce & Rita Hobbs (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • There are concerns regarding the loss of seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development and there will be impacts on Lake Richmond. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. There may also be issues associated with the construction on surrounding homes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 462
Submitted by: Brian Joseph Jenkins (interested residents) Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • The proposed LandCorp marina is unlikely to be built, except for the residential/commercial component. • The use of public land for private purposes is not supported. • If a marina/canals are constructed, the management and remediation costs will fall on Rockingham ratepayers. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 463
Submitted by: Suzanne Kitson (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Fishermen don’t support the proposal as it will impact on their sport. The Little Penguin will be impacted by the proposal. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 464
Submitted by: Fiona Moran (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 465
Submitted by: Hugh Maclean (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • Alternative suitable sites exist close by. • The loss of habitat will have negative impact on the flora and fauna. • The proposed development will impact on people's health and wellbeing. • The site has tourism value which would be lost by the proposed development. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development.
The submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 466
Submitted by: Richard & Brenda Mazzucchelli (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site contains unique topography and wildlife (including marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • Canal developments create a range of negative impacts. The Mangles Bay area is a sensitive environment which will be impacted by the proposed development. There are other more suitable locations for a marina. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development. The access to the beach will be limited and the access for dogs is probably going to be banned.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 467
Submitted by: Donna Millichamp (Interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows: • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The marina would only benefit a limited number of people and will be a burden to ratepayers. • The site has tourism value given the natural attributes and marina environment, such as the Little Penguins. The penguins feeding grounds will be impacted. • The site should be kept as an ecotourism park for future generations to enjoy and learn about Aboriginal heritage matters. • Alternative suitable sites exist close by for a marina. • The ongoing construction of the marina will cause a range of amenity impacts and will not create new jobs.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 468
Submitted by: Brooke Nash (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Point Peron has not been looked after by the City of Rockingham. The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • There will be amenity impacts (i.e. traffic, noise, pollution) from the development.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 469
Submitted by: Iain A Nichols (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
Motor Vehicle Traffic Concerns
Over a number of years traffic, both private and commercial on and off Garden Island is bad. In the mornings (06:30 - 09:30) traffic queues extended nearly 5 km, past Rockingham beach and the other way, over 5-8 km down Safety Bay Road. There were occasions when we were told to forgo the usual security checks and allow traffic onto the base. The Rockingham Council called the base and complained about traffic congestion to the Navy, and orders were passed down to causeway staff to "speed up" the flow.
Over 200 heavy vehicles will be carting fill in and out of the development site. What roadways will this extra traffic be using, as houses back onto Garden Island Highway, will this road join up with Point Peron areas?
The Department of Defence intend to expand the entry point to the causeway. This will mean more heavier traffic as that project gets underway, as part or all of the Defence project will coincide with the Mangles Bay Marina project.
Wild Life Habitat
The "Little Fairy Penguins” colonised rocks to nest during the hours of darkness. During the days they spend gathering food, in 2010 there were nearly 200 or so Penguins nesting on the rocks which have reduced. There may be many reasons for their disappearance, but further disruption of their feeding grounds and the destruction of "seagrass" in and around Point Peron would be devastating.
Many tourists come to the Island and ferry over to observe the wild life. They inject the "tourist dollar" into our community. If a marina development goes ahead, it will not enhance tourism.
The Community that will Benefit from the Marina
The types of people that would benefit from the project are:
• boat owners • real estate investors • high profile, wealthy, business people. • the developer cedar woods. • overseas, foreign investors (wealthy Asian businessmen) • Rockingham Council in increased rates. • anyone else who has a vested, personal, financial, interest or who stands to gain, financially or otherwise from such a development.
The majority of people in the Rockingham/Kwinana/ Baldivis will not gain from the proposal. Even if they own boats and other marine craft, how could they afford the mooring costs of a marina and buying property.
The Community that Would Benefit from a Coastal Reserve and Parklands
• everyone • family groups • overseas visitors and tourists • health and fitness groups • elderly and special needs citizens • children • sporting groups • holiday makers • historical heritage groups and indigenous citizens • school and educational groups
Do not envisage any of the above groups benefitting from a real estate development and marina complex, unless they will be able to afford to dine "alfresco" at the marina.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 470
Submitted by: Richard & Gillian O’Callaghan (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site contains unique wildlife and is in close proximity to the Perth capital city.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 471
Submitted by: Geraldine Peters (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The marina should be built at Wanliss Street for environmental and recreational reasons. • Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. Who will pay for the canals in future? • Lake Richmond and the Little Penguins will be affected. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, which will be expensive to maintain. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 472
Submitted by: Bernadette M Pilkington (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it should not be developed.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 473
Submitted by: Robert Smetherham (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The land was transferred to the State in order to be used for recreational / conservation area. • The site has significant recreation and conservation values which should be retained. • The marina will destroy the environment and take years to create. • The proposal will impact on the environment (Little Penguin) and will be a cost the taxpayer to benefit the minority of the population. • A coastal park will be a better option for the site and will not cost as much. This will attract more tourists etc.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 474
Submitted by: Dianne Storey (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The submitter refers to Dr Mike Van Keulen (School of Biological Sciences & Biotechnology Murdoch University) who is a leading seagrass expert. • The Mangles Bay and Point Peron region is highly disturbed and vulnerable to further impacts from development. • The proposal represents a significant risk to marine and terrestrial environments and is not suitable for such a development. • The proponents are relying of incorrect seagrass shoot density cards by the Cockburn Sound Management Council. • The prosed access channel will intersect seagrass meadow and associated impacts on the ecosystem.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 475, 476, 477
Submitted by: Harold Thipthorp, Jean Thipthorp, Nathan Thipthorp (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the land is a Bush Forever area which should be retained. Building a marina is snot supported at this site and should be at Wanliss Street. The site has been used for recreation purposes.
Submissions 476 & 477 were supported by Hearings. Submission 477 tabled additional information at the hearings.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 478
Submitted by: Jamie Tweedie (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposal will create a dangerous, expensive and unnecessary marina. • There are cheaper and more practical options to regenerate Rockingham, such as a coastal park and a marina at Wanliss Street. • Scientific studies have concluded that the site is unsuitable for a marina from an environmental perspective which will need ratepayer’s money. • The area is used for recreational purposes and should not be rezoned.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 479
Submitted by: Michael Moore (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The loss of Bush Forever is not supported. • The loss is seagrass is alarming. • Given the proximity to Lake Richmond and potential negative impacts. • Concerned about water modelling undertaken for the site. A letter from Senator Scott Ludlam (and associated report) were provided.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 480
Submitted by: City of Rockingham
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission advises as follows:
Marina Management
The applicant is seeking the City's agreement to perform the role of waterways manager, as advocated in Development Control Policy No. 1.8 - Canal Estates and Artificial Waterways Development. The Policy stipulates that the local government should be satisfied that it has the financial capacity to carry out the role of waterways manager. The City is currently assessing information from the applicant that seeks to provide an accurate account of the financial implications of undertaking the role of waterways manager; additional information has been requested from the applicant. The process is ongoing and there is regular dialogue between the two parties.
It is not possible to predict, however, when Council will be in a position to determine if it accepts the responsibilities associated with waterways management. Until this is confirmed, the MRS amendment cannot proceed to final approval as it places uncertainty on the ongoing viability and management of the project.
Coastal Setback
The MRS amendment Report states that the proposal complies with the general intent of State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP 2.6). The City's assessment has concluded, that the information presented to support the coastal setback, and define the extent of the Parks and Recreation (foreshore) Reserve, has not addressed key aspects of the WAPC Policy.
SPP 2.6 requires that adequate coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning (CHRMAP) be undertaken where a development is proposed in an area at risk of being affected by coastal hazards.
SPP 2.6 provides guidance on 'calculating the coastal processes', which determines the foreshore width necessary to accommodate the long-term movement of the coast; this represents the 'coastal setback'. The calculation considers the nature of the coast (in this case a 'sandy coast') and matters such as the risk of storm erosion, historical shoreline movement trends and future sea level rise.
Where the assessment identifies that the level of risk is unacceptable to the proposed development, adaptation measures are prepared to reduce those risks down to acceptable or tolerable levels. A hierarchy of adaptation measures to address the coastal risk hazard are contained in SPP 2.6.
The PER that preceded Ministerial Statement No. 974, assessed coastal processes and arrived at a coastal setback of 20 m with the assumptions supporting this outcome being summarised as follows:
• Stable shoreline with 0 m net erosion trend since 1988; • Construction of a buried seawall and beach renourishment (from the Point Peron sand trap); and • Sea level rise defence unspecified coastal defensive structures and active beach management.
An assessment of the applicant's coastal setback proposal has identified that the requirements of SPP 2.6 have not been addressed. Without accounting for adaptation measures and variations, the required setback outlined by SPP 2.6 is approximately 162m. This would be the minimum requirement that would allow coastal processes to take their course up to the year 2100.
Under the provisions of SPP 2.6, the applicant is required to demonstrate the technical basis for this setback is not appropriate, or demonstrate a case that 'avoid', 'retreat' and 'accommodate' options are not relevant in this instance and that a reduced setback using the 'protect' option should apply. The PER did not to address these issues and states that only the 'protect' option will be applied.
In the event that a 'protect' option is proposed and agreed to, SPP 2.6 also requires that issues of funding arrangements are made clear, including cost of maintenance, maintaining the beach and public access, and monitoring of impacts and efficacy of the protection measures.
Coastal Node
The applicant has sought to classify the full extent of the Mangles Bay Marina as a Coastal Node which is defined under SPP 2.6 as "a distinct and discrete built area that may be located within a coastal foreshore reserve. Excluding permanent residential development, it may vary in size from a grouping of recreational facilities to an area of commercial or tourism facilities or accommodation."
SPP 2.6 states that the need for the provision of Coastal Nodes on the coast is recognised and should provide for a range of facilities to benefit the broader public. Such nodes may be developed within the coastal foreshore reserve but should only be located where identified in a strategic plan. The Policy further states that Nodes should be located on stable areas, have no negative impacts on the adjacent environment and avoid areas of high natural landscape or resource value.
The proposed Mangles Bay Marina is not a typical Coastal Node in that the actual activity centre abuts the inland marina and not the coast. In this regard, the link to the coast is not a key feature of the Node and an increased coastal setback can be provided. This criteria also needs to be addressed in justifying the proposed coastal setback reduction.
PER
The PER included information on coastal processes and the proponent is relying on this information to justify compliance with SPP 2.6. The Report and Recommendations of the EPA (Report 1471) and subsequent Ministerial Statement No. 974, did not deal with the issue of coastal setbacks and deferred the matter to the planning process.
It is also noted that the consultant’s report relies on a previous version of SPP 2.6, and the Policy has since been amended, therefore planning decisions need to take into account the current SPP 2.6.
An assumption of the costal consultant that the beach adjacent to the project area is stable, is incorrect. A report prepared for the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance has found this section of the coast to be one of the three areas of existing acute erosion in the coast between the Garden Island Causeway and Fremantle.
Zoning
The proposed Urban zoning to high water mark, is not supported. The proposed Urban zoning in this location is to facilitate the development of a waterfront restaurant building or similar. The applicant has not demonstrated the merit of containing this land use within privately owned, Urban zoned land rather it be within Parks and Recreation reserve, with a leasehold or similar form of tenure.
There are considerable benefits for the land being part of the broader Parks and Recreation reserve to enable an integrated and coordinated management approach of the foreshore reserve. The provision of Urban zoned land to the high-water mark has not been reconciled against the requirements of SPP 2.6.
Urban Deferred Buffer to Point Peron Wastewater Treatment Plant
The appropriateness of an Urban Deferred zoning for land located within the buffer of the Point Peron Wastewater Treatment Plant is questionable. The Water Corporation has confirmed that there are no plans to decommission the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This limits the long-term viability for the land located within the buffer to be developed for 'sensitive' urban land uses. It is recommended that the Urban Deferred zone be replaced by the Park and Recreation reservation.
Regional Roads
The City has completed an assessment of the Traffic Report, including a peer review. In summary, it has been determined that the traffic analysis requires further refinement in order to understand the potential impact to the overall network. In particular, an accurate account of the peak demands is required to determine the traffic implications associated with the intersections abutting the project area.
Traffic Modelling
The Traffic Report modelled the likely traffic demand on roads at both AM and PM peak periods for three scenarios being:
(i) Traffic volumes in the year 2031 without the proposed Marina with the anticipated expansion of the Rockingham City Centre, HMAS Stirling and additional growth of residential development within the Rockingham Peninsular. (ii) Scenario (i) in the year 2031 with the proposed Marina constructed. (iii) Scenario (ii) in the year 2031 and assuming the construction of the Garden Island Highway.
The modelling is based on ITE (American) Trip Generation projections instead of local trip generation rates used specifically in Western Australia. It is recommended that the model be amended accordingly to apply the local, commonly applied standards.
Furthermore, the vehicle trip growth rate which underpins the model does not appear to accurately account for all the scenarios shown in the model. It is recommended that this be corrected.
The Traffic Report outlines recommendations for intersection improvements to accommodate the traffic generated by the Marina and growth generally (including HMAS Stirling). It has been identified that the proposed profile of the intersections may not be able to be accommodated within the available road reserve.
In this regard, additional clarification is required to determine whether the proposed intersection configurations (in particular the intersections of Parkin Street/Patterson Road/Kent Street, Safety Bay Road/Memorial Drive, Safety Bay Road/Parkin Street) can be constructed within the available road reservation.
It is requested that the intersections that require road reserve widening be modelled with intersection configurations that are based within the current road reserve. In this regard, there are limitations on the ability to expand the road reserves. Garden Island Highway
There has been no environmental assessment undertaken to determine if a road can be constructed within the existing ORR reservation. This is particularly relevant in light of the sensitive environmental attributes of Lake Richmond that could be impacted by the construction of the road. As such, the inference contained within the MRS amendment Report that this unconstructed regional road will accommodate and alleviate traffic congestion cannot be confirmed.
The City has assessed the traffic impact of Scenario (ii) where the ORR is not constructed. In this scenario, while the road network was shown to operate at the limit of its capacity, the City has significant concerns that peak traffic movements to Cape Peron have the potential to adversely impact the function of the surrounding local road network. In particular, accessing the realignment of Memorial Drive along Hymus Street and Safety Bay Road were shown within the Traffic Report to have unacceptable queue lengths.
Scenario (iii) does not model the impact of constructing the full extent of the 'ORR' reservation. The Traffic Report models the construction of a road to the intersection of Safety Bay Road, missing the link between Safety Bay Road and the Garden Island Causeway. In order to understand the full traffic model implications of this scenario, it is recommended that the model be modified to incorporate the missing portion of the ORR reserve.
Unless the traffic analysis is refined to provide accurate forecasts, the implications of on the local movement network, including the proposed and existing intersections abutting the project area, cannot be assessed. It is recommended that the WAPC require the traffic analysis contained in the Traffic Report to be revised to address the above and that the City be given the opportunity to assess the outcomes and supplement its submission prior to the WAPC considering the MRS amendment for final approval.
Urban Water Management
The City has assessed the District Water Management Strategy (DWMS) prepared to support the MRS amendment. The City advises that the following matters should be addressed in the subsequent Local Water Management Strategy stage:
• provide estimated land requirements for water management; • provide an indicative water balance to demonstrate that the development will not impact surrounding environmentally sensitive areas; • the Maximum Groundwater Level calculation requires correlation and correction to the nearest Department of Water long-term monitoring bore; • the water quality sampling of groundwater and Lake Richmond requires further assessment and quantification in the DWMS to establish trends in comparison to relevant guideline targets; • the peak predevelopment discharge rates for major events into Mangles Bay need to be quantified; • correspondence from the Water Corporation is required to confirm a commitment to providing wastewater infrastructure to the development; • A hydrogeological assessment should be performed to demonstrate that the development of a marina and groundwater abstraction will not adversely impact the surrounding environmentally sensitive areas; • sustainability initiatives such as rainwater harvesting should be referred to for the management of frequent events; and • further information is required regarding the drainage design criteria including the Lake Richmond Main Drain (the realignment not identified along Safety Bay Road).
Additional Information
The City of Rockingham updated its above comments regarding the DWMS which was approved by the DoW. The City advises that their comments should be considered in the subsequent Local Water Management Strategy stage of the planning process.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 481
Submitted by: Taylor Burrell Barnett (on behalf of Cedar Woods Properties Limited and LandCorp)
Summary of Submission: SUPPORT
The amendment is supported for the following reasons:
Waste Water Treatment Plant and Buffer The northwest portion of the amendment area is located within the 500 m buffer of the Point Peron WWTP. The 500 m buffer has been applied in accordance with the EPA Guidance Statement No. 3 Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (EPA 2005). This Guidance Statement provides generic distance and is not intended to be an absolute separation distance; rather a default distance for the purposes of:
• Identifying the need for specific separation distance or buffer definition studies. • Providing general guidance on separation distances in the absence of site specific technical studies (EPA 2005).
On this basis, it is intended that odour modelling is completed in the near future in order to more accurately determine a specific separation distance to the Point Peron WWTP. Based on our understanding of the geography and topography of the location, it is very likely that the extent of the buffer will be able to be reduced. On that basis alone, it is appropriate to retain the Urban Deferred zone to maintain flexibility for changes to the boundary of the ‘urban’ zone once a site-specific separation distance has been confirmed.
Proposed Local Structure Plan
The proposed Mangles Bay Structure Plan lodged with the City of Rockingham in April 2015 recognises the 500 m WWTP buffer and details that sensitive land uses will not be permitted within the buffer unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the extent of the buffer can either be reduced or removed. This is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Urban Deferred zone.
Furthermore, it is acknowledged in the Structure Plan that there are no plans to decommission the Point Peron WWTP at this stage.
Appropriateness of Urban Deferred zone
The proposed Urban Deferred zoning is seen as an appropriate means for the identification of land that is physically and locationally suitable for urban purposes in the future, albeit that certain matters need to be satisfactorily addressed to demonstrate that the land is suitable for urban development. It is for this reason that the WAPC has applied an Urban Deferred zoning over land subject to the 500 m WWTP buffer.
An Urban Deferred zoning is considered appropriate as it merely recognises the resolution of significant environmental issues through the Minister’s recent environmental approval and the capacity of the land to be used for urban purposes in the event the WWTP ceases to operate in the future. In such a circumstance, an Urban Deferred zone is considered the most appropriate classification of the land until such time as it can be demonstrated that the land is suitable for urban purposes. If this cannot be demonstrated, the land remains undeveloped until such time it can.
The Urban Deferred zoning is typically applied by the WAPC in cases similar to those applied at Mangles Bay. State Planning Policy 4.1 - State Industrial Buffer provides further protection in this regard. This policy protects existing infrastructure by preventing encroachment of sensitive land uses through the implementation of appropriate buffers. Extensive consultation with the various authorities and servicing agencies, which provide comment on a request to lift the Urban Deferred zone, will also be required.
Guidelines for Lifting of Urban Deferment
The lifting of the Urban Deferred zone is an entirely separate and additional statutory process to that of an MRS amendment proceeding straight to the ‘urban’ zone. Additional requirements need to be addressed to those prepared for the original MRS amendment request. These include addressing the WAPC’s Guidelines for Lifting of Urban Deferment. A comprehensive report addressing these requirements will need to be prepared and lodged with the WAPC for their consideration prior to the lifting of urban deferment.
Before agreeing to the transfer of land to the Urban zone the WAPC will require clear demonstration that the requirements of the Guidelines can be met and any constraints to urban development can be satisfactorily addressed.
Regional Roads
During the pre-referral process for the Mangles Bay MRS amendment it was agreed with the City of Rockingham and the Department of Defence, that Cedar Woods/LandCorp would engage traffic engineers to undertake detailed traffic modelling to address the concerns of the Department of Defence.
Through this negotiation the methodology, study area and other parameters for the modelling were formulated and agreed with the City of Rockingham and Department of Defence. The City of Rockingham has also been consulted to provide consent to the scope of the detailed traffic modelling. This traffic study was also provided to the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage.
The Council raised concern with regards to the traffic modelling undertaken by Cedar Woods with respect to the regional road network. Correspondence from the City of Rockingham confirmed that the City had undertaken an initial assessment of the document, and consented to the release of the document to the Department of Defence to undertake a peer review.
The project traffic engineers, have met with the City of Rockingham and its traffic consultant to discuss various matters requiring further consideration from the City’s perspective. It is understood that the City’s peer review was generally supportive of the model and outcomes. Two items that require further work include a sensitivity analysis and consideration for the full GIH alignment. These items can be addressed to the City’s satisfaction and are not fundamental issues that should hold up progression of the MRS amendment.
This submission was supported by a Hearing where additional information was tabled.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: 483
Submitted by: Roberta Bencini & Craig Macfarlane (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. • The proposal will destroy the environment as insufficient assessment has been undertaken, particularly regarding Lake Richmond and the Little Penguins. • There should be further consultation with the community and scientists as the proposal is controversial.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 484, 485
Submitted by: Kayla Siebert, Judy Siebert (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as there is so much wildlife in the locality. The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy. The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 486, 487
Submitted by: Hamish Thipthorp, Jeremy Thipthorp (interested residents)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submissions object to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • Canal development is not appropriate for Mangles Bay. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. • The site should be an “A” class reserve, current with leases withstanding. • The proposal will impact on tourism negatively.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 488
Submitted by: Daniel Smart (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as the canals will adversely affect the salinity of groundwater and Lake Richmond. There will be amenity impacts form the increase in traffic and impact on seagrasses in Shoalwater and Palm Beach.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 489
Submitted by: Deborah Van Dongen (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. Ratepayers will need to pay for the maintenance of the canals etc and rates will increase. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. Tourism will be affected by the proposal. • The site should be classified as an “A” Class reserve for all generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 490
Submitted by: Leonardo Jadveitor (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as Penguin Island and its surrounds are part of the history and culture of the locality which would be destroyed. Tourism would decrease and change the identity of the city. The penguins should be saved.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: 491
Submitted by: Greg Smith (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as it erodes the clean green reputation of Perth by imposing another canal estate. As residential densities increase, the provision of high quality public open space is important.
The amendment fails to address the psychology of the loss of bush and the alienation of bush forever. The entire Bush Forever site 355 is to be reserved for Parks and Recreation under the MRS. There is an opportunity to provide a world-class ecological coastal park which, allowing the integration of land and water-based conservation and recreation. The amendment is a contradiction of State Planning Strategy 2050, and the draft Perth and [email protected] million.
Introduction
MRS amendment 1280/41 boasts Perth's 'reputation as one of the world's cleanest and greenest cities' is due largely to good planning. Does this proposed amendment enhance or erode this reputation?
G. Stephenson and J.A. Hepburn recognised the importance of public open space, particularly the Point Peron Reserve, as:
"Wherever possible the ocean frontage should be retained in public ownership and adequate access provided. Particular mention should be made of the Point Peron Reserve, at present in Commonwealth Government ownership. The rocky headland and the level areas to the South-East are admirably placed for public open space and this must be their permanent use".
The whole Point Peron is 'Public Open Space' (Stephenson and Hepburn 1955). In draft Perth & [email protected] Million (2015) E. Lumsden writes that "the decisions we make today will have a profound impact into the future."
History of Town Planning
The history of Town Planning in WA, had origins in the UK with Public Health Acts of 1845 & 1875, and the seminal 1909 Housing & Town Planning Act. The need for the legislation [in the UK] was the fast growth of cities associated with the industrial revolution; health problems included bubonic plague, cholera and typhoid.
The WA gold rush created the same sort of health issues, and the solution to these problems was Town Planning; to rationally and comprehensively plan Perth and Fremantle. In 1955, the Stephenson Hepburn Plan for Perth and Fremantle [S&H Plan] was produced to preserve the amenity of Perth and Fremantle via orderly and proper planning. The 1963 MRS being the statutory manifestation of the Stephenson Hepburn Plan.
Ebeneeezer Howard's "Garden City" philosophy understood, holistically, the relationship between humans and nature; their co dependence. The Parks & Recreation Reserves (P & R) & 10% Public Open Space provision are manifestations of this understanding. Land identified as Bush Forever is also part of this understanding.
Context
State Planning Strategy 2050
The State Planning Strategy, 2050 seeks to "undertake a collaborative approach in planning", promoting the sustainable use and development of land in the State. This strategic planning response is in response to the challenges likely to be faced by Western Australia into the future, and an anticipated "doubling of the current population by 2056". The following are noted:
"Collaborative action can achieve State strategic goals and objectives more effectively than any single organisation acting alone".
A principle of the State Planning Strategy, 2050 is "Governance: build community confidence in development processes and practices". The processes and practices surrounding the alienation of public recreational reserved land for the development of a private canal estate for the elite few significantly undermines this principle and brings the practice of town planning into disrepute. Good governance according to State Planning Strategy 2050 "...is participatory, collaborative, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and follows the rule of law". "Western Australia faces a range of social issues such as increased obesity, diabetes and social exclusion through socio-economic or geographical gaps"
'Strategic Goal 5 - Conservation' states that: "...limiting the clearing of native vegetation, maximising natural habitat protection and rehabilitation, avoiding development in environmentally sensitive areas, and reducing the fragmentation of vegetation by urban and industrial development" will increase the resilience of the State's natural environment (p 27). Clearly the removal of over 40 ha of Bush Forever as proposed by this amendment flies in the face of this strategy.
"Adapting to the impacts of climate change will be critical, as will reducing carbon emissions..." According to Edith Cowan University research fellow Oscar Serrano, seagrass is 35 times more efficient at carbon sequestration than Rainforests (reported by C. Negus, Sound Telegraph, Wednesday 4 November 2015). The removal of seagrass and dredging of coastal sediments required for construction of the proposed canal estate would release the carbon which has accumulated over thousands of years and the success rate of replanting seagrass roots or seeds is low. "...the diversity of Western Australia's natural assets...will be celebrated, protected and recognised as an important contributor to sustained prosperity" (p 20). The strategic objective of planning for tourism is "to access and enhance a range of experiences unique to the State", of which 'nature conservation' is a key element, enhancing tourism through a balanced relationship between ecotourism and nature conservation (WAPC 2014). This is linked to economic investment, which continues to promote "WA's unique identity, history and sense of place"
Draft Perth & [email protected] Million
This policy makes the case for consolidated urban form. Redevelopment of the Rockingham foreshore as proposed by the Rockingham City Council, combined with the development of an offshore marina at Wanliss Street would consolidate foreshore development on an already developed section of coastline. The creation of an alternative commercial and tourist precinct as per the Mangles Bay canal proposal is the antithesis of consolidated urban form; casting uncertainty on the economic viability of Rockingham foreshore, while providing no guarantee that commercial tenants will be attracted to the canal development. Other points outlined in draft Perth & [email protected] Million and at odds with this proposed amendment are:
"...areas of significant regional environmental value should be avoided and protected" (p 3). “Perth will responsibly manage its ecological footprint and live within its environmental constraints while improving our connection with and enjoyment of the natural environment" (p 4).
"The principles of good urban growth management...avoid the loss of a sense of place; ...to protect our natural habitats..." (p 15).
"Protect areas with regional conservation and landscape values" (p.23). "to preserve and enhance the existing environmental and landscape values of the subregions for future generations to enjoy." (p.24).
"…need to protect environmental attributes will be increasingly important in the provision of adequate public open spaces across the Perth and Peel regions (p.46).
"…protected areas include the coastline...lakes and wetland chains..." (p.53) "Planning and development decisions are required to account for the economic social and environmental value of natural resources and assets in the public interest." (p.53).
"The challenge will be [to] ensure ongoing protection of environmentally significant areas and to integrate inevitable changes into existing environmental and landscape features to create a sense of place" (p.55).
Fig. 11 Open space and state forest, page 57 shows the amendment area to be open space. "Protect regionally significant natural areas, conservation assets and areas with high biodiversity value for the benefit of future generations" (p.65). "Encourage and facilitate behaviour change to increase energy, water and other resource efficiency" (p.67).
Contemporary Planning Issues
Contemporary town planning health issues are psychological, related to alienation/anomie that manifest in withdrawal from community and suicide. Open Space [like Bush Forever land] is of psychological benefit, consequently nature destruction causes "wellness" to be reduced.
The hypocrisy and duplicity of declaring land Bush Forever and then proposing to bulldoze" the land does not build community confidence but destroys it. The proposed Bush Forever loss and the overall proposed MRS amendment is the opposite to "building community confidence"; it is community alienating [hence the level of community opposition and angst] and brings the profession of Town Planning into disrepute. The three key objectives of Bush Forever were provided.
Social Sustainability
Access to quality public open space enhances mental health and wellbeing. "The freedom of open space evokes a variety of responses from all ages. Older children and adults seek out open space to immerse themselves in the peacefulness of the landscape, to escape the rigid formality of urban structures and pressures of our fast-paced society" (Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2013).
City characteristics such as open space attract tourists and align with environmental sustainability. Although Perth ranks 9th in the top 10 of EIU's most liveable cities, this has slipped from 4th, with the 'culture and environment' indicator being the lowest scoring area. "Public open space is one of the drawcards for local and international visitors and enables townships to absorb and cater for dramatically increased populations in peak visitation periods" (Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2013).
A collaborative approach would require the WAPC to engage with the broader community in general and the community driven/produced Cape Peron Coastal Park Concept Plan.
Economic Sustainability
Rockingham foreshore has the potential to be a vibrant coastal city centre and destination for locals and tourists. The provision of an offshore marina would provide sufficient boat pens for the boating community and create an image of Rockingham as a city by the sea, where people can participate in boating, swimming and other activities actively or passively, such as observing others on the water while enjoying brunch in the heart of Rockingham.
A vibrant mixed-use Rockingham foreshore precinct functioning as the commercial, residential and recreational heart of the city would complement the combined Shoalwater Islands Marine Park, Cape Peron Community Park, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park and Rockingham Regional Environment Centre, creating an integrated eco-tourism hub. Environmental Sustainability
"The environmental benefits of open space contribute to the way we live our lives now and for future generations. Open space provides:
• Resilience - In conjunction with vegetated areas of the foreshore, open space provides storm protection, erosion buffering and flood control. • Protection of geological formations and sensitive vegetation by controlling access, contributing to public safety and protecting cultural heritage sites. • Environmental quality and carbon storage through the provision and enjoyment of fresh air, filtered water, shade trees and reduced reflective heat" (Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2013).
Proposed Bush Forever Reclassification
The MRS amendment proposes the removal 43.16 ha of Bush Forever land, less than 10% P & R reserve and non-continuous P & R reserve along the coast. The amendment Report provides no economic, environmental or social justification for any of the above deviations from normal proper town planning principles. The amendment Report fails numerous "goals" as established in the State Planning Strategy 2050 and the draft Perth and [email protected] Million.
The impetus for the proposed MRS amendment is The Perth Recreational Boating Facilities Study 2008. This study is a completely one-dimensional analysis; consultation involved "Mail outs to industry groups and presentations to Yacht Club managers..."
The amendment Report provides no economic, environmental or social justification for the removal of over 43 ha of Bush Forever land for a narrow stakeholder interest group of "boat owners".
Boat Owners, historically, have been allocated prime real estate around the Swan River, there is no justification for the continuation of this inequitable resource allocation. How does the supply of more facilities for Boat Owners fit into the theme of environmental goals to reduce fossil fuel use?
Given the amendment does not propose Private Recreation Zoning and or Waterways Reservation, it could be construed that the "marina" is a ruse to rezone the land to Urban, when clearly it should be Parks and Recreation.
Need For Paradigm Shift
Nothing illustrates the failure of town planning in Perth than the following quotes from the draft Perth and [email protected] Million:
1. Reducing Car Dependency; "Perth has one of the highest car use rates in the world with more than three quarters of people travelling to work by car. The cost of Perth's congestion was estimated to be nearly $1 billion in 2009; by 2010, it could more than double to $2.1 billion. Delays in morning peak traffic increased to 45 seconds per kilometre in 2010 compared with 25 seconds a decade earlier." (p. 16)
2. Transport: "In 2011, 77 per cent of Perth residents drove to work. Of these, 93 per cent drove alone. Just 4 per cent travelled to work either by cycling or walking. The average commuting time is continuing to rise; in 2010 it was 33 minutes, up from 27 minutes just two years previously."(p.47)
3. Further develop the Green Network: "Find innovative solutions to address the undersupply of active open space in the outer metropolitan urban areas, consistent with water-sensitive urban design." (p.64)
The failure to provide adequate open space and the motor car dominated modal split are the reality of a planned Perth. Perth has had a Strategic Plan for 60 years but there are fundamental failures. The undemocratic WAPC has "lost the plot", so disconnected with the common man that it blithely proceeds with development facilitation while ignoring the community and paying lip service to sustainability principles. The role of the WAPC in formulating the proposed MRS amendment makes it unable to consider submissions in an unbiased manner. It is obvious that the WAPC has a conflict of interest. The former Metropolitan Region Planning Authority was described as "authority without accountability"; it is unfortunate that this description is also true of the WAPC.
Orderly planning should provide 'degrees of citizen power' from the ladder of citizen participation. The process of participation during development of the Mangles Bay Marina proposal led stakeholders to believe their views were being considered, however, several years down the track it is obvious these views were disregarded, leaving participants alienated. Such behaviour brings planning into disrepute and discourages community participation as it appears a fait accompli.
Conclusion
Support the creation of Cape Peron Coastal Park, "The accessibility of nature (clean coasts, birds, wild/lowers and forested landscapes) in Perth is one of its strongest, most precious and also most vulnerable, features ".
The physical and psychological damage that would flow from this proposed amendment must be understood to be conscious and malicious environmental destruction.
No amount of obfuscation can hide the fact. The "Nuremburg" defence is not credible, or acceptable. If the WAPC supports the amendment, hopefully the Minister rejects the amendment; if the Minister supports the amendment, hopefully the Governor rejects the amendment; and if the WAPC, Minister & Governor support the amendment, hopefully the Parliament of WA will move a motion to disallow the amendment.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: Late (492)
Submitted by: Department of Transport
Summary of Submission: COMMENT
The Department of Transport (DoT) advises as follows:
Road Network and Transport Assessment
• The amendment proposes to complete a detailed traffic modelling and Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prior to a final determination by WAPC. In order to provide support for this amendment. The DoT will provide more detailed transport advice regarding the proposal back to WAPC once the required TIA is made available for further consideration. It is premature for DoT to provide comments on this proposal without understanding the impacts to the surrounding strategic transport network. The TIA would be instrumental in guiding the ultimate road reservation requirements for Memorial Drive / Garden Island Highway.
• A Transport Noise Assessment will need to be undertaken in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. The noise report will need to consider noise mitigation measures.
Public Transport Network
The PTA is not currently planning to extend bus services to the Marina. Further consultation is required with PTA to determine the future of public transport services in this area.
Marina Configuration and Considerations
As referenced in the amendment Report, the provision of a marina at Mangles Bay is identified in the DoT report Perth Recreational Boating Facilities Study 2008 (DoT Technical Report No. 444). The location of the north facing Mangles Bay site has been acknowledged for some time as being of strategic importance to the provision of recreational boating facilities. The amendment Report notes that between 661 to 700 boats will be accommodated within the marina. The DoT has yet to examine or approve the latest marina layout. Similarly, the layout of the entrance breakwaters has yet to be approved.
Coastal Hazards and SPP 2.6
In a 100-year planning timeframe, the area will suffer from coastal erosion and inundation driven by sea level rise. In the absence of an adequate development setback distance (normally around 150 m), a long-term shoreline stability management plan will need to be in place together with the identification of funding arrangements for ongoing management.
The recommended total setback of 20 m is not consistent with the SPP 2.6. Confirmation from the Department of Planning, Lands & Heritage/WAPC that the proposal will be treated as an exemption from SPP 2.6 has not been provided. In the context of setbacks, it is noted that the proposed continuous Parks and Recreation Reserve along the shore is interrupted by a section of Urban zoned land with zero setback.
Coastal protection structures and measures that may be required to manage coastline retreat due to sea level rise in the next 100 years may have detrimental effects, including loss of beach amenity and loss of seagrass if large scale beach nourishment becomes necessary. It is likely that the protection costs for continuous seawall management will escalate as a result of the predicted sea level rise over the next 100 years.
Waterways Manager and DC 1.8
The "proponent has committed to confirming a waterways manager for this marina, prior to the amendment being considered by the WAPC for final determination". This is noted as being consistent with the requirements of DC 1.8 Canal Estates and Artificial Waterway Developments. It is also noted that the City of Rockingham and the proponent are in discussions over this matter.
It is understood that a business case is being refined by the proponent and that this will demonstrate the ability of the project to fund the ongoing management and maintenance of the waterway project. The business plan will also need to include management responsibilities for the dredged channel. As the seabed in this location is a reserve managed by the DoT, a lease will need to be provided for the channel footprint. Although the DoT will continue to provide technical assistance where possible, it cannot undertake the waterways manager role.
Recommendations
The Transport Portfolio will continue to work with WAPC to finalise the following key transport items associated with the MRS amendment:
• The traffic modelling and the traffic impact assessment be undertaken by the proponent and submitted to the former DoP for further advice prior to this MRS amendment being finalised by the WAPC. • That a layout of the Marina be provided to DoT's Coastal Infrastructure Business Unit for further review and comments. • That the ultimate alignment of Garden Island Highway plans showing connectivity to Safety Bay Road be resolved in consultation with the former DoP. • Allowance be made for public access all along the water edge boundary throughout the entire site (e.g. by inclusion of designated easements). • Confirm the future provision of public transport services with PTA. • Undertaking for a waterways manager for the Marina be established prior to the MRS amendment being finalised and DoT advised. • The MRS amendment proposed should not be adopted by the WAPC until all of the above issues are addressed with DoT, PTA and the former DoP.
Additional Information
Since receiving the above information, the DoT notes that the “Mangles Bay Marina Traffic Impact and Transport Strategy, January 2015” has been prepared which assesses Memorial Drive as a two-way lane road.
The DoT notes that Memorial Drive will be constructed as a four lane road as per the agreement between the Department of Defence and City of Rockingham. It is acknowledged that any additional minor refinements to the Memorial Drive ORR reservation will be addressed as part of a separate MRS amendment, following a structure plan by the City of Rockingham in consultation with the Department of Defence.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission noted.
Submission: Late (493)
Submitted by: Amy Laurenson (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• Canal developments are not supported elsewhere in Australia because of their impacts. They are expensive to maintain for future generations. • The proposal will require dredging and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. • The site has seagrasses which will be destroyed by the proposed development. Seagrasses are critical to fish stocks, Little Penguins etc, and the ecology of Cockburn Sound will change. • The site should be retained for Bush Forever purposes to protect the environment and future generations to enjoy.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: Late (494)
Submitted by: Glenn Mallaby (nearby resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment and has advised as follows:
• Marina infrastructure. • Marina and canal dredging due to sand movement, silt and seagrasses. • Developers commitment to any environmental and financial problems. • Land and environmental issues, subdivision design, i.e. sustainable design, smart design, public access, Point Peron’s importance as there is much wildlife, fauna, heritage and wildlife.
This submission was supported by a Hearing.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Submission: Late (495)
Submitted by: Maureen Welten (interested resident)
Summary of Submission: OBJECTION
The submission objects to the amendment as follows:
• The proposed development does not accord with 1964 agreement, where the land would only be used by the State for recreational/conservation uses. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The proposal will require dredging (which will release toxins) and silting will occur, and there will be flushing problems. There will be ongoing costs and the proposal will take at least 20 years to be completed. • The site has been used for recreation purposes and has historical connections and should be retained for future generations. • The site contains unique wildlife (and marine life) which will be impacted by the proposed development and should be protected for recreational and/or conservation purposes. • The Cape Peron Coastal Park is an alternative that would cost less and benefit the health and welfare of all persons. The site has tourism value which could be enhanced for future generations.
Planning Comment: The amendment is not being finalised for the reasons discussed in “Part 10 – Conclusion and Recommendation” section of the report.
Determination: Submission/s noted.
Schedule 3
The amendment figure - proposal 1 as advertised 4551
2804 2956 355
2196 C/|\ 41965 3055 4556 3055
2301 2328
1 2
444 ESPLAN 5 85 ADE 86 32 31 30 29 C/|\ 27853 87 28 C/|\ 48968 2301 303 301 1786 T 34 3 E 81
303 E 25 R
E 501 T 24 U 2058 S PO INT 23 N PERON S
ROAD E U 1 V 35 A M 2055 Y 39 A T H 15 88 72 S I
89 V 71 131 132 10 6 5 PA RKIN STR 3 EET 7 19 PERON 20 18 17 16 C | 48968 GRIG /\ GS W 355 500 AY 40 27 800 30 500 23 801 24 35
T 25 E 36 34 E R 26 T 11 S 37 355 X U 12 A 2734 V 13 1 14 50
D 2
A 10
O 9 R 3 8 41 6 T Y E A 4 7 E B R ST E Y 5 K T LA E
F
2193 A S 1530 2733
301
355 C/|\ 45307 4357 1596 4357
ROCKINGHAM Mangles Bay Marina proposed major amendment as advertised 28 October 2014 Proposal 1
Proposed Amendment:
Other regional roads reservation Notice of Delegation ( S i t e N o . ) Bush Forever area for removal. Parks and recreation reservation ( S i t e N o . ) Bush Forever areas Urban zone
Urban deferred zone
Oracle reference no: 2780 File number: 809/02/28/0017P V Version number: 1
N 0 75 150 225 300 Date: 18/03/2015 Produced by GeoSpatial Planning Support, Department of Planning, Perth WA Base information supplied by Western Australian Land Information Authority LI 646-2014-3 metres
Appendix 1
List of detail plans as advertised Mangles Bay Marina
Proposed Major Amendment
Amendment 1280/41
as advertised
3.2576
Detail Plan
1.6798 - Peron Other regional roads, Parks and recreation, Urban Deferred, Urban
1.6799 - Peron Parks and Recreation, Urban
1.6818 - Peron Other Regional Roads, Urban
1.6819 - Peron Other Regional Roads, Urban